Non-detailed text: two motives in the natika, and a film ending
The supplementary reader is a Telugu nāṭika. An 8-mark question asks: ఉద్యోగాన్ని ఎందుకు తిరస్కరించాడు? The teacher's note says 'because he wanted to serve his village'. Of 38 scripts, 19 give that answer, 8 argue he refused because of the insult to his father, 5 blend both, 4 describe a film version in which he accepts the job and resigns later, and 2 are blank. A companion 4-mark question on the play's ending drew the film's ending from 12 students. The textbook's కథాసారాంశం box supports the village-service reading, but the Act III dialogue supports the insult motive. The scripts go back to students on Monday and the teacher must decide, before then, what the key will accept and how to describe the film-based answers in writing.
1. Define the acceptable range for the 8-mark question and the mark split.
Read the worked answer
Split: main reason 4, textual support 3, expression 1. The acceptable range is both motives plus the blend, because both are in the text - the కథాసారాంశం box gives village service and the Act III dialogue gives the insult to his father.
A script earns the 4 reason marks if it names a motive actually present in the play and presents it as the character's reason, not the student's opinion. The 3 support marks require a scene or speech, not a paraphrase of the box. So the 19 village-service answers reach 7 only where the scene is cited; the 8 insult answers reach the same ceiling; the 5 blended answers are the strongest and must not be penalised for 'not choosing'.
Publish this range with the scripts, and tell students plainly that the summary box is not the whole evidence.
2. What mark and what written comment should the 4 film-ending scripts and the 12 film-based ending answers receive?
Read the worked answer
Zero on the play-based items, but not zero on the paper, and the reason must be stated. The examinable text is the prescribed nāṭika; a film ending is a different text, however faithful to the film.
Award 0 on both items, write చలనచిత్ర కథాంతం - పాఠ్యపుస్తకం కాదు on the script, and deduct nothing elsewhere.
The real problem is instructional: 12 students making the same substitution means the class was taught a screen version. Schedule a period on the printed ending and check which other lessons have been taught from adaptations.
Do not record it as malpractice - the students were not hiding a source, they misidentified the text. Log it in the item analysis under 'text confusion', not 'copying', so the response is reteaching rather than discipline.
3. One student argues the character was selfish in refusing. How should that script be marked?
Read the worked answer
It is not automatically wrong: the item asks for analysis, and the play supplies evidence - his refusal leaves his mother unprovided for. Mark it on the same three heads: reason clearly stated (4), evidence from the text (3), expression (1).
What fails is an unsupported reading. A thesis with no scene behind it earns at most 2 on reason and 0 on support.
The teacher's note is a note, not a marking scheme; the revised key should read 'any motive argued from the text'. The marker's check is simple: can you point to the page the student's claim comes from? If yes, mark the argument; if no, mark the gap.
Tell the student the mark is for the evidence, not for agreeing with the teacher - and show the class one supported reading and one unsupported reading side by side.