Marking a Metaphor: Three Scripts on 'a census of the unwanted'
You are moderating the unseen prose section of a Class X First Language examination for 84 scripts in a Barrackpore school. The passage (about 430 words) describes an elderly woman in a narrow Kolkata lane who feeds eleven stray dogs and keeps a ruled notebook in which each dog is entered under a name, with a column for 'arrival' and one for 'complaints'. The paper carries this item for 3 marks: 'Why does the narrator call the notebook "a census of the unwanted"? Answer in your own words.' Three scripts return different things. Script A: 'Because she wrote the names of the stray dogs in the notebook.' Script B: 'The dogs are unwanted by everyone else, but her notebook counts them as persons with names and histories, so the phrase is half-mocking and half-tender.' Script C: 'The narrator says the notebook was ruled and kept in the kitchen and the woman had fed dogs for eleven years.' A colleague argues A must get full marks because it is 'factually correct and in the student's own words'. You have to settle the award and repair the item before the next test.
1. Award the three marks and justify the principle you are applying. What exactly separates A from B, given that both statements are true?
Read the worked answer
Award: B = 3, A = 1, C = 0.
The verb in the item is explain, and the object of explanation is a metaphor, not a fact. That fixes what the mark must reward.
- B (3) does three things: it unpacks census (counting, recording, giving a name and a history), it unpacks unwanted (rejected by everyone else), and it shows why the two words sit oddly together - 'half-mocking and half-tender'. That is the effect of the phrase, which is what 'why does he call it...' asks for.
- A (1) is true but answers a different question ('what is in the notebook?'). It converts a figurative phrase into a literal one, which is precisely the operation being tested. It is not 'in the student's own words' in any meaningful sense - it is the passage with the metaphor removed.
- C (0) lifts accurate detail (ruled, kitchen, eleven years) that is unrelated to the phrase.
Principle to record: marks follow the cognitive operation demanded by the question verb, not the factual proximity of the answer. 'Own words' means 'do not copy the passage', not 'avoid interpretation'. A quick test for the moderation file: could the student's sentence have been written by someone who never noticed the words census and unwanted? A passes that test, B fails it - and B is the better answer.
2. Rewrite the item so that Script A can no longer score, and list the sub-skills your rewritten item tests.
Read the worked answer
Rewritten item (3 marks): 'The narrator could have written "a list of stray dogs". Why does he choose "a census of the unwanted"? In your answer, refer to two words in the phrase and say what effect the choice creates.'
Why this closes the loophole: it puts the rejected paraphrase inside the question, so a candidate who writes 'because she listed the stray dogs' is visibly repeating the prompt instead of answering it. It forces word-level attention ('two words') and a statement of effect - the two things Script A lacks.
Sub-skills tested:
- Literal comprehension of the situation (the notebook, the dogs).
- Figurative reading - 'census' imports bureaucracy, citizenship and record-keeping.
- Register and tone sensitivity - 'unwanted' is a judgement, not a description.
- Effect on the reader - the tenderness inside the mockery.
- Controlled expression within a word limit.
Suggested mark split: 1 for what each of the two words contributes, 1 for the tension between them, 1 for a coherent statement of effect. A candidate who names the words but only paraphrases them now scores 1, not 3.
Caution for the setter: 'refer to two words' makes the item more reliable but also more scaffolded. Keep the scaffolding in the first test of the year and remove it in the pre-board, so that candidates internalise the habit rather than the prompt.