The 250-Word Review That Is Really a Plot Summary
You are marking a 10-mark composition question: 'Write a review of a Marathi play you have seen, in 200-250 words.' The mark scheme is content 4, organisation 3, language 3. Script 1 runs 380 words: the first 70 words are copied verbatim from the printed blurb, then a scene-by-scene plot summary, and the evaluation is 'the acting was very good'. Script 2 is 210 words and is a well-organised character sketch of the protagonist, with two quotations but no judgement of the production. Script 3 is 240 words, compares the play with a film, evaluates the set, lighting, and two performances with examples, but misspells the director's name twice. You have 12 scripts and 25 minutes. You must award marks, write brief feedback, and decide how to treat the copied blurb and the over-length script.
1. Award marks for Script 1 and justify the breakdown, including the copied material and length.
Read the worked answer
Script 1: content 1/4. A review must evaluate production choices and support a judgement; a scene-by-scene summary with 'acting was very good' is a plot report. Organisation 2/3: the sequence is clear, but it is narrative rather than evaluative, with no thesis or recommendation. Language 2/3: readable but repetitive. Total 5/10. The 70 copied words are not credited as the student's content, and because they are verbatim from the blurb they should be bracketed in the feedback; if the school's policy treats unacknowledged copying as a malpractice issue, follow that policy, but do not double-penalise by also removing organisation marks. The 380-word length is over the limit; I would note it and cap organisation at 2 rather than zero, since the excess is mostly plot summary. Feedback: replace two summary sentences with one evaluative claim and two production examples.
2. Script 2 is well written but answers a different task. How many content marks should it get, and what feedback moves it toward a review?
Read the worked answer
Script 2 answers a different task. A character sketch may be excellent writing and still miss the review's defining moves: a judgement of the production, evidence from staging, design, or performance, and a recommendation to a reader. Content 2/4: the character analysis is relevant to the play and shows textual knowledge, but it does not evaluate the production. Organisation 2/3: the structure suits a sketch, not a review. Language 3/3. Total 7/10. Feedback should be concrete: 'Keep your two quotations, but turn them into evidence for a claim about the production. Add one paragraph on set or lighting, one on an actor's choice, and a final sentence saying who should see this play and why.' This preserves the student's strength - close reading - while naming the missing genre features.
3. Compare Script 3 with Script 1. What does the comparison reveal about rewarding judgement over surface correctness? Decide Script 3's marks.
Read the worked answer
Script 3: content 4/4 - it evaluates set, lighting, and two performances with examples, and it makes a comparison that illuminates the production. Organisation 3/3 - clear review structure with a judgement and supporting paragraphs. Language 2/3 - two misspellings of the director's name are minor but they are errors of accuracy, and a review's credibility depends partly on names. Total 9/10. Script 1 fails because it substitutes summary for judgement; Script 3 succeeds because it risks judgements and supports them. That is the difference the mark scheme is trying to capture. The comparison also warns against halo marking: Script 1's neat handwriting and length should not raise it, and Script 3's spelling slips should not sink it. Award the judgement, note the accuracy, and move on.