Over-correction in the Editing Task
You are marking the 8-mark editing task in the Class X grammar section. The passage has eight numbered lines, one error per line. The intended corrections include 'returned back' → 'returned', 'discuss about' → 'discuss', 'one of my friend' → 'one of my friends', 'much books' → 'many books', 'informations' → 'information', 'cope up with' → 'cope with', 'married with' → 'married to', and 'prefer X than Y' → 'prefer X to Y'. Of your 38 candidates, 26 fixed 'returned back', 17 fixed 'discuss about', 31 fixed 'one of my friend', but 9 changed 'an advice' (which was not an error line) to 'a advice'. Eleven candidates rewrote entire lines instead of writing only the correction. 'Cope up with' is used in local speech, and two colleagues argue it should be accepted. Marking must be consistent across three sections.
1. State the marking rule you would issue for (a) a candidate who rewrites the whole line, (b) a candidate who makes two corrections in one line, and (c) 'cope up with'. Justify each.
Read the worked answer
(a) Full-line rewrite: award the mark if the intended correction is visible and the rewrite introduces no new error; if it introduces a new error, no mark. The task tests identifying and correcting the error, not copying the line, so the rewrite is not penalised as such.
(b) Two corrections in one line: mark only the correction that addresses the planted error. If the second change creates a new error (for example changing 'an advice' to 'a advice'), the line scores 0 because the candidate has shown an error rather than removed one. If the second change is purely stylistic and leaves the line grammatical, ignore it.
(c) 'Cope up with': accept only 'cope with'. 'Cope up with' is common in speech but non-standard in formal written English, and the exam tests standard written usage. Local frequency is not a criterion; the same rule must apply in all three sections. Announce all three rules before marking begins so that the 11 full-line rewriters are treated identically.
2. A candidate changes 'one of my friend' to 'one of my friend's'. Does that earn the mark? Explain.
Read the worked answer
No mark. The planted error is number agreement inside the noun phrase after 'one of': the noun must be plural, giving 'one of my friends'. Adding an apostrophe changes the phrase into a possessive and does not repair the plural; 'one of my friend's' is still ungrammatical in this frame. The candidate has noticed that something is wrong at that point but has misdiagnosed it, which is exactly the distinction the editing task is designed to catch. In feedback, write the frame on the board - one of + plural noun - and contrast it with the genuine possessive 'my friend's book', so the apostrophe is not treated as a general-purpose fix.
3. Design a 10-minute remedial task for the 26 candidates who fixed 'returned back' but not 'discuss about'.
Read the worked answer
Five-minute pair sort. Give pairs eight short sentences, four with a redundant particle after the verb ('returned back', 'repeated again', 'discussed about', 'entered into') and four correct ('returned', 'repeated', 'discussed', 'entered'). Pairs sort into 'redundant' and 'correct' and underline the verb in each.
Three-minute board check. Elicit the four verbs and write them in a column. Ask why 'returned back' fails the same test as 'discussed about': the particle adds no meaning that the verb does not already carry.
Two-minute exit ticket. Each candidate writes two original sentences, one using 'discuss' without 'about' and one using 'return' without 'back'. Collect and check only those two lines.
The task is short because the error is a habit, not a concept: the aim is to make the redundancy visible and to rehearse the correct form once, not to reteach the whole tense system.