When the figure of speech is mislabelled: poetry marks versus sympathy
A 3-mark item in the poetry section asks students to identify any two figures of speech from a prescribed poem and explain how each works. Your key splits the marks as 1 for correct identification and 0.5 for the quotation and explanation, per figure. Twenty-eight scripts later, three patterns appear. Student 1 correctly handles one line but calls the line where the poet names the motherland 'घराचा दिवा' an उपमा, writing 'मातृभूमी दिव्यासारखी आहे' although the line contains no उपमावाचक word. Student 2 names अनुप्रास correctly and adds only 'पुनरुत्तीमुळे गेयता येते', without pointing to the repeated consonant. Student 3 analyses a line from a different prescribed poem, and the analysis itself is accurate. Your colleague argues that all three 'understood poetry' and should get the benefit of the doubt; the head examiner wants a content-based ruling that can be applied to the next 200 scripts.
1. Award marks to Students 1, 2 and 3 under the stated split and justify each figure separately.
Read the worked answer
- Student 1 - 2/3. Figure one: 1.5 (name 1 + quotation and explanation 0.5). Figure two: name 0, because the line has no उपमावाचक शब्द (सारखा, प्रमाणे, वाणी); the motherland is directly identified with the lamp, which is रूपक. Explanation 0.5, because the student has correctly quoted the words and perceived that a comparison is at work. She loses only what she got wrong. Awarding the identification mark here would make उपमा and रूपक indistinguishable on the key, and the whole item pointless.
- Student 2 - 2.5/3. अनुप्रास named correctly (1), but 'पुनरुत्तीमुळे गेयता येते' is a definition, not evidence - no repeated consonant is shown, so 0 for the second half of that figure. The other figure is handled fully (1.5). The item asks for explanation; a memorised definition is not one.
- Student 3 - 1.5/3. The analysis is sound but of a line outside the prescribed poem. The item tests the prescribed text, so that figure earns 0; the second figure earns 1.5. Do not transfer credit to another question later - that would be re-marking by goodwill.
- Pattern: the losses are all in evidence, not in knowledge of terms. That tells you where to teach, not how to mark.
2. Respond to the colleague's 'benefit of the doubt' argument with a principle the whole team can use, and say what should happen in class instead.
Read the worked answer
Principle: sympathy marks destroy the paper's ability to discriminate.
- If Student 1, who mislabels रूपक as उपमा, scores the same as a student who names it correctly, the mark no longer reports what the candidate can do. The II PUC grade is used for admission and for revaluation; a soft mark is a false signal that cannot survive a recheck.
- The legitimate place for generosity is the key, not the script: if a device is genuinely ambiguous in a line (for example उपमा embedded inside a रूपक), the key should list both as acceptable in advance and require the evidence. Deciding case by case after seeing the scripts is what produces inconsistency.
- Here the count matters: if 12 of 28 scripts made the same उपमा/रूपक error, the fault is instructional, not individual. Mark strictly and fix the teaching.
- Class action (5 minutes): put three lines on the board; students underline any उपमावाचक शब्द and write रूपक where none exists. Follow with one line containing both अनुप्रास and रूपक, to show that a line may carry two devices.
3. Should the key accept a second figure of speech when two devices operate in the same line? Frame the rule and the safeguard that keeps marking consistent.
Read the worked answer
- Yes, accept it. If a line genuinely carries both अनुप्रास and रूपक, a student who identifies either, with evidence, has answered the item. The item asks for 'any two figures from the poem', not for a fixed pair.
- Safeguard 1 - evidence requirement. The key lists, for each prescribed poem, four or five acceptable devices, and against each one the evidence the student must supply: the repeated consonant for अनुप्रास, the quoted comparison for उपमा, the direct identification for रूपक, the exaggeration for अतिशयोक्ती. A name without the evidence earns the identification mark only.
- Safeguard 2 - no double counting. The same words cannot be offered twice as two devices unless both devices actually operate there; 'उपमा' and 'रूपक' on one phrase is a contradiction, not two answers.
- Safeguard 3 - freeze before marking. Build the list while setting the paper, not while marking it. Additions after marking begins must be initialled and applied to all scripts, including those already done.
- Effect: the key becomes a table of acceptable answers plus evidence, which any substitute examiner can apply to 200 scripts without a judgement call.