One Mark, Ninety-Six Scripts: A Grammar Key Under Challenge
Ninety-six scripts from a Bodo First Language mock examination are being marked item by item. Section D, Grammar, has ten one-mark items. Item 9 asks candidates to rewrite a sentence so that a noun is plural, given a numeral in the frame. The answer key shows one acceptable form, with the plural suffix attached. While marking, examiner R notices that several candidates kept the singular form after the numeral - a pattern many fluent speakers accept, since the numeral already signals plurality. Item 9 is one mark out of 100, but the school's scholarship nomination goes to the top three, and the third and fourth ranks are separated by a single mark. Examiner R has already marked 40 scripts strictly by the key and does not want to re-mark. The head of department says the key came from the board's model paper and should not be questioned.
1. Decide whether the numeral-plus-singular answers should be credited, and what to do about the 40 scripts already marked.
Read the worked answer
Check the textbook before conceding anything. The prescribed grammar chapter, not the model paper, is the authority. If it teaches that a numeral already marks plurality and the suffix is not added, the key is wrong and those candidates are right. If it teaches the suffix as obligatory in this frame, the key stands and the pattern is a teaching point.
If the key is wrong, re-mark all 96. The cost is one item across 96 scripts - under an hour - against a scholarship rank decided by one mark. Re-marking only the unmarked 56 would leave 40 candidates judged by a rule just rejected, which is indefensible when third and fourth places are split by a single mark.
Record it. Write a short note for the award list: item 9 accepted with and without the suffix, reason, date. Send it to the head of department. A key error quietly absorbed gets repeated next year; a documented one gets corrected in the next model paper.
2. How does the item's construct validity bear on your decision, and what would you change in the next paper?
Read the worked answer
The item tests a form, not a concept. As written, item 9 rewards memory of one written convention and cannot separate a candidate who understands plurality from one who does not - both may produce a defensible sentence. That weak validity is why the dispute arose at all.
Two cheap repairs.
- Rewrite the frame so the plural marker is genuinely obligatory: drop the numeral and give a context with several unnamed objects, making the key unambiguous.
- Or keep the numeral frame, list both forms in the key, and add a separate item testing the marker where it is required.
For this sitting, validity argument cannot justify either leniency or severity after the fact: decide from the textbook now, and apply the repair to the next paper. Keep the two decisions separate in the moderation note, so the department does not read a re-mark as a concession.
3. Only three scripts show the numeral-plus-singular pattern, and all three come from the same village school. Does that change the ruling?
Read the worked answer
No. Frequency and origin do not decide correctness. Three scripts from one school may reflect a local teaching habit or a genuine regional pattern; either way, the question is whether the form is acceptable in the standard the textbook teaches, not how many candidates used it.
Two temptations to resist. Marking by school - crediting a form because 'those students speak that way' is as unfair as refusing it - and treating the small number as proof that the key must be right.
Apply uniformly. If the textbook permits the form, all three are credited, and so is anyone else who used it, including candidates in the 40 already marked. If the textbook forbids it, all three lose the mark, and the school is informed, not penalised.
Report upward. Ask the head of department to raise the pattern at the next cluster meeting of subject teachers; a one-mark item is a poor place to settle a question about the standard language.