Internal assessment: a reading log that is partly the publisher's blurb
A candidate in your school submits the internal assessment for the long fiction: a response of 1,150 words against a stated limit of 800–1,000, a reading log of nine dated entries, and a ten-minute viva. Component marks are response 8, viva 6, log 6. Entries 1–5 reproduce, almost word for word, the publisher's back-cover description ("a sweeping saga of loss and inheritance across three generations"); entries 6–9 give a page number with a one-line reaction each, for example "p. 118 - the letter scene; I did not believe her". The response argues that the narrator is unreliable and cites three scenes by page, but in the first three minutes of the viva the candidate cannot describe any of those scenes without opening the book. The external moderator requires a component mark and a one-line comment for each component. Seven minutes of the viva remain.
1. Award the reading-log mark out of 6 and justify it in terms of what the entries do and do not evidence.
Read the worked answer
2/6. The log is being marked as evidence of a reading process, not as a date-stamped diary.
- Entries 1–5: these are marketing copy. They record no page, no incident, no quotation and no reaction, and the phrasing is not the candidate's. They cannot evidence reading, and they raise a separate authenticity question that should be raised with the candidate and the coordinator rather than silently punished through the mark.
- Entries 6–9: genuinely personal, but thin - a page reference plus a reaction with no context, no prediction, no vocabulary note, no link forward or back. They show engagement with isolated scenes, not continuity across a text.
So: four entries out of nine carry evidential weight, and none of those four shows the reading developing. That is worth a low pass, not a zero: the candidate did read something. Comment for the moderator: "Log partly transcribed from the cover blurb; four genuine but isolated entries." Flagging the copied entries in the comment protects both the candidate and the centre.
2. Design three viva questions, in rising order of difficulty, that separate genuine reading from borrowed criticism. For each, state what an answer would have to contain to earn marks and what would show the claim is not the candidate's own.
Read the worked answer
Q1 (recall of texture, ~1 min). "Without opening the book, describe the place where the letter scene happens and who else is in the room."
- Earns: any specific, verifiable detail - objects, who enters, what is being done.
- Loses: evaluative commentary with no scene ("it was very tense") - the same vocabulary as the written response, with nothing under it.
Q2 (~2 min). "You say the narrator is unreliable. Give me one thing the narrator reports that another character contradicts, or one place where you changed your mind about trusting her."
- Earns: a located scene plus a reason; a change of mind is especially good evidence of first-hand reading.
- Loses: a rehearsed definition of unreliability with no scene, or a page number offered without content.
Q3 (~2 min). "If you had to cut 150 words from your response, which paragraph would go, and what would the reader lose?"
- Earns: the candidate can summarise their own structure and identify the weakest link.
- Loses: inability to describe their own argument - a strong sign the phrasing was borrowed.
Mark the viva on responsiveness and evidence, not on fluency: a hesitant candidate who locates a scene outranks a fluent one who cannot.
3. How do you handle the 150-word over-run? State the decision rule and the comment you record.
Read the worked answer
Decision rule: penalise only if the mark scheme specifies a penalty for over-length. A stated word limit is a requirement, but a requirement without a sanction is not a marking criterion, and inventing one on the day makes your marks incomparable with another centre's.
- If the scheme is silent: no deduction, but the over-run is recorded in the comment, because economy is part of what the response component is testing.
- If the scheme has a penalty band: apply it at the grade the scheme states, not a harsher improvised one.
Comment to record: "Over the 1,000-word limit by 150 words; no deduction under the scheme, but the additional material repeats points already made and weakens the argument's shape."
Secondary judgement: the excess is not where the real problem lies. The candidate cannot defend the cited scenes in the viva, which is a viva issue, and the log is partly transcribed, which is a log issue. Do not let a visible, easily counted fault (length) absorb the penalty for faults that belong to other components.