Retelling Versus Arguing: The Ten-Mark Prose Essay
Your 10-mark long-answer item on the prescribed prose lesson asks for three things in one answer: the writer's central argument (4 marks), two supporting details drawn from the text (4), and one comment of the candidate's own (2). Across 96 scripts, 41 open with two paragraphs retelling the anecdote the writer uses as a lead-in and never state the argument in a single sentence; 12 state the argument correctly but attach a supporting detail lifted from a different lesson; 8 state the argument and then disagree with the writer; the rest are sound. Two evaluators differ by three or more marks on 22 of the 96 scripts. The lenient view is that 'the content is there, they simply never say it in one line'. The strict view is that an unstated thesis is an absent thesis. Revaluation requests close in three days, so band descriptors must be written and applied now.
1. Write the band descriptors and settle the dispute between the lenient and the strict evaluator.
Read the worked answer
The strict view wins, with one concession recorded in the descriptor.
- 9–10: argument stated in one sentence, two details correctly located in this lesson, comment reasoned.
- 6–8: argument stated, details accurate, comment thin or mere agreement.
- 3–5: argument recoverable only from a closing sentence or a title-like phrase; details accurate; no comment.
- 0–2: retelling only; or a stated argument with details from the wrong lesson.
The function of this item is argumentation, so the retelling scripts sit at 2–3 and cannot rise to 5 for fluency of narration. The concession: a script whose final sentence states the thesis has done the cognitive work and lost only the organisation, so it takes the four thesis marks and lands in the 6–8 band, marked down on comment alone. The lenient evaluator's instinct is honoured there, not in the middle of the scale, and that distinction is what makes the descriptor defensible on revaluation.
2. Take a script that retells the anecdote accurately and never states the thesis. Fix its mark and give the single feedback sentence, with reasons for that wording.
Read the worked answer
Mark: 3. The accurate detail earns part of the detail allowance; the absent argument earns nothing, and there is no comment.
Feedback: 'நீங்கள் சொல்லும் செய்திகள் சரி; ஆனால் ஆசிரியர் எந்தக் கருத்தை நிலைநாட்டுகிறார் என்பதை முதல் வாக்கியத்திலேயே எழுதுங்கள்; பிறகு அந்தக் கருத்துக்கு உதவும் இரண்டு செய்திகளை மட்டும் சுருக்கிக் குறிப்பிடுங்கள்.'
The wording is chosen deliberately. It opens by validating what the candidate did right, so the retelling is not felt as wasted. It names the missing element (the thesis), fixes its position (first sentence), and converts the material the candidate already possesses into evidence rather than asking for new reading. It also implies the 4+4+2 structure without restating the rubric, so the candidate can self-check before the next test. 'Write better' would have produced no change.
3. Can the eight dissenting scripts earn full marks? Give the rule the panel should apply to any answer that contradicts the prescribed writer.
Read the worked answer
Yes - full marks are available, but only in one order.
The third component of the item invites a comment, so disagreement is a legitimate response and not a deviation to be tolerated. A dissenting script earns the four thesis marks by stating the writer's argument accurately, the four detail marks by citing two details correctly, and the two comment marks if the objection is reasoned from the text - from a stated fact of the lesson - rather than from bare opinion. What it cannot do is earn detail marks while misreading the argument: the 12 scripts that attach a detail from another lesson score zero on those four marks even where the sentence is accurate in isolation, because an accurate sentence that does not support the claim is not evidence.
Panel rule: disagree with the writer, never with the text. One sentence on the erratum sheet covers all future scripts of this type.