Settling simile versus personification in an unseen poetry item
A school’s half-yearly Santali poetry section includes a 3-mark item on an unseen four-line poem: 'The moon walks like a bride / across the quiet courtyard; / the stars are children / who have lost their way.' Students must identify one figure of speech and explain its effect. Script A says: 'Simile, because the moon is compared to a bride using "like". The effect is that the moon looks beautiful and shy.' Script B says: 'Personification, because the moon "walks". The effect is that the moon is alive.' Script C says: 'Metaphor, because the moon is a bride.' The head examiner’s note says: 'Accept any one figure of speech if justified.' Two teachers disagree: one will accept only A; the other will accept A and B. You have 22 scripts showing these three patterns and must settle the standard before marks are entered.
1. Which scripts should be accepted, and why? Apply definitions to the wording of the poem.
Read the worked answer
A: accept. The word 'like' explicitly marks a simile: moon compared to bride. The effect statement is simple but plausible-beauty and shyness fit 'bride' and 'quiet courtyard'. Full 3 marks if the effect is linked to the comparison; 2 if the effect is only 'beautiful'.
B: accept only with a condition. 'Walks' gives the moon a human action, so personification is arguable. But the line's main signal is the simile 'like a bride'; a script that says 'personification because it walks' ignores the comparison. Award 2/3 if the script identifies personification and explains the human action; do not award full 3 unless it also notices that the simile frames the image. If the mark scheme demands one device, B should be treated as a secondary device, not an error.
C: reject as the named device. 'Like' rules out metaphor: a metaphor would say 'the moon is a bride', not 'like a bride'. The effect may be acceptable, but the device label is wrong, so 0 or 1/3 depending on whether the effect is separately credited.
2. Design a 1-mark MCQ and a 2-mark short-answer item that would reduce this ambiguity while still testing poetic devices.
Read the worked answer
MCQ (1 mark): 'Which device is most clearly signalled by the word "like" in line 1? (a) metaphor (b) simile (c) personification (d) alliteration.' Key: (b). This isolates the explicit marker.
Short answer (2 marks): 'Identify the comparison in lines 1–2 and explain one way it shapes the reader’s picture of the moon.' Marking: 1 for naming the comparison (moon/bride), 1 for a relevant effect (e.g., the moon seems shy, ceremonial, or moving quietly). This avoids asking students to choose between overlapping devices and rewards close reading. It also gives a place for the personification insight-'walks'-without making the label the whole answer.
3. How should markers handle a script that lists three devices but explains none?
Read the worked answer
Award 0 for the device mark. The item asks students to 'identify one figure of speech and explain its effect'; a list without explanation does not meet either part. If the script names one correct device and gives a one-word effect ('beautiful'), award 1/3 at most: identification is correct, but the effect is not explained. Markers should not give credit for volume. The standard line should be: 'One device, justified, beats three devices, asserted.'