Marks for Inference in an Unseen Passage: When a Paraphrase Is Not an Inference
You are moderating 42 scripts on a 480-word unseen passage, “The Field Behind the Depot,” about a municipal landfill converted into a wetland. The passage’s final sentence reads: “By 2019 the herons had returned, though the smell of the old dump still rose after rain, and the caretaker, Mr Osei, kept a ledger of both.” Question 1 asks, “What does the final sentence suggest about the town’s change? (2 marks).” Question 2 asks, “Explain the phrase kept a ledger of both. (1 mark).” The mark scheme states: 2 marks for a valid inference supported by textual detail; 1 mark for a partial inference without support. Script A writes: “The town became fully clean and nature came back.” Script B writes: “The change is real but incomplete: the herons returned while the old dump still announces itself after rain, and the ledger keeps both facts, so the ending is honest rather than triumphant.” Script C writes: “It suggests the caretaker is a record keeper who writes in a ledger about herons and bad smells.” Two markers give Script A one mark; a third gives it two because “herons are mentioned.”
1. Award Question 1 (2 marks) for Scripts A, B and C, and justify each award against the wording of the mark scheme.
Read the worked answer
Script A - 0 of 2. The scheme rewards a valid inference supported by detail. A’s claim that the town “became fully clean” is contradicted by “the smell of the old dump still rose after rain.” A response that reverses the textual evidence does not score, even though it names the herons. The third marker was rewarding the presence of a keyword rather than the inferential move - a common halo effect when a script contains vocabulary from the passage.
Script B - 2 of 2. It makes two linked inferences (the change is real; the change is incomplete) and anchors each in a detail (“herons had returned”; “smell … after rain”), then interprets the ledger as deliberate honesty rather than triumph. Supported and interpretive.
Script C - 0 of 2. It glosses “ledger” literally and never says what the sentence suggests about the town’s change. No inference means neither criterion is met. A marker may stretch to 1 only if the script notices that two opposite things are being recorded; C does not.
Principle to circulate: marks track the quality of the inferential move, not the length of the answer or the number of quotations.
2. Question 2 as set is a one-mark item. Decide whether it is a vocabulary item or an inference item, and rewrite it so that it discriminates at the intended level. Give an answer key with acceptable and unacceptable responses.
Read the worked answer
As written, Question 2 tests idiom glossing, not reading: “explain the phrase” invites a definition, and a candidate can answer “he kept a record” without having understood the passage. For 1 mark it under-discriminates; both a weak and a strong reader can earn it.
Rewritten item (2 marks): “The caretaker ‘kept a ledger of both.’ What two things does ‘both’ refer to, and why does the writer give him a ledger rather than, say, a camera?”
Accept for full marks: (i) the returning herons/the recovered wetland and (ii) the lingering smell/the dump’s persistence; plus (iii) a reason such as: a ledger records what a camera cannot - the smell, the passing of time, a private admission that both facts are true. A ledger implies an unsentimental witness who keeps accounts rather than a public celebration.
Accept for 1 mark: both referents correctly identified but no reason offered for the choice of object.
Do not accept: “a book for writing accounts,” “he is a record keeper,” or a list of only one referent. These are lexical paraphrases or half-readings, and the key should say so explicitly so that markers do not reward fluency in place of reading.
3. Write the feedback comment you would put on Script A (maximum 40 words) that names the missing move rather than simply restating the mark.
Read the worked answer
“You noticed the herons, but the passage also says the smell ‘still rose after rain.’ An inference must account for both details and then say what the ending suggests about the town’s change - not only what happened.”
Why this wording: it is 40 words, quotes the counter-evidence so the student can locate it, and names the cognitive gap (reporting versus inferring) without using the mark scheme’s language, which students rarely convert into action. It also implicitly shows why “fully clean” fails, so the student can self-correct on the next passage rather than waiting for a re-teach.