Marking an Unseen-Prose Answer: Textual Evidence vs. Outside Knowledge
A SSLC Tulu teacher has finished marking the prose section of a mid-term paper. The unseen passage is about 130 words long and describes a boy who leaves his grandmother's paddy field to work in a city hotel and returns after five years. Question 12 carries 5 marks: 'What does the passage suggest about the boy's feelings when he returns?' Script A quotes 'his feet stopped at the gate' and argues that the boy is ashamed to enter. Script B writes a general paragraph on rural-to-urban migration and says the boy regrets leaving, but gives no quotation. The marking scheme allows 3 marks for textual support and 2 marks for inference. There are 42 scripts, moderation starts at 9.30 a.m., and the teacher must finish by noon. Two sections are being marked by different teachers, and the head teacher wants consistent marks. One moderator has already said Script B deserves full marks because 'the regret is clearly there'.
1. Which script should receive the higher mark, and what exact mark would you award? Justify your decision using the 3+2 split.
Read the worked answer
Script A should score higher. The 3 marks for textual support are earned by the quotation 'his feet stopped at the gate' and by the link the student makes between that detail and shame. The 2 inference marks depend on whether the inference is tied to the text. Script A's 'ashamed to enter' is defensible because stopping at a gate suggests hesitation, though a moderator could ask for one more detail. I would award 5 if the answer names both the quotation and the hesitation; 4 if it quotes but explains vaguely. Script B has no quotation, so it cannot earn the 3 support marks. Its 'regret' is a plausible inference, but without a line it is outside knowledge, so I would award 1, or at most 2 if the paragraph shows one precise link to the passage. Full marks would reward a general essay rather than comprehension.
2. Two moderators disagree about Script B: one wants to give 3 marks for 'good general knowledge'. Write the ruling you would record and explain the principle behind it.
Read the worked answer
Ruling: Script B is awarded 1 mark, not 3. Principle: an unseen-prose question tests reading of that passage, so marks are earned by evidence from the passage, not by background knowledge about migration. General knowledge can support an inference only when the student explicitly connects it to a word, image, or event in the text. Script B does not do that. To keep moderation consistent, the ruling should state the mark band: 3 support marks require at least one accurate quotation or close paraphrase; 2 inference marks require a claim tied to that evidence; 1 mark may be given for a plausible inference with no evidence. Recording the band prevents one moderator from rewarding fluency and another from rewarding evidence alone.
3. What single instruction would you add to the question paper next time to reduce this disagreement?
Read the worked answer
Add a two-part instruction: 'Quote one line from the passage, then explain what it suggests about the boy's feelings.' This makes the evidence requirement visible to students and to markers. It also gives moderators a shared anchor: the first part earns support marks, the second earns inference marks. The instruction should not tell students which line to choose, because that would turn the task into recall. A useful wording is: 'Your answer must contain one short quotation and one sentence of explanation.' That keeps the question open enough to test comprehension but specific enough to mark consistently across 42 scripts.