A variant ending, suspected collusion and a plot-summary essay
The literature paper requires a 250–300 word essay on the prescribed collection of Khoekhoegowab oral narratives. Question 3 asks how the ending of one prescribed narrative resolves the conflict. Candidate M, whose home variety is Haiǁom, retells the ending as her grandmother tells it, which differs from the prescribed Nama version, and never mentions the prescribed ending at all. Meanwhile candidates J and K, who sat two metres apart, produce essays containing 210 identical words, including the same misquotation of a praise poem. A third candidate, T, writes a competent retelling of the whole plot with no comment on how the ending resolves anything. The marker must decide what M's essay can earn, whether to open a malpractice case, and how to band T. The scripts, seating plan and recordings of the invigilation are all available.
1. What can M's essay earn, and what should happen beyond the mark?
Read the worked answer
The question asks about the prescribed narrative's ending; M answers about a different version. The essay cannot earn marks for the required analysis, because the set text is not there - however good the Haiǁom telling is, it does not show that M can read and analyse the prescribed text. So the content band is low, with whatever the essay earns for coherence and expression under the language and organisation criteria.
Two things then belong on the record. The marker notes that M knows a genuine oral variant, and the department uses it: invite M to tell the variant to the class, and set a follow-up question comparing the two endings. That turns a marking problem into the comparative work the syllabus wants, without pretending the original essay answered the question set.
2. Set out the procedure for J and K, and say what may and may not be done before the procedure is complete.
Read the worked answer
210 identical words, including the same misquotation, is far beyond coincidence. Procedure matters more than the verdict.
- Do not confront either candidate in class.
- Secure both scripts and the seating plan.
- Check for a common source - a study guide, shared notes, a classroom handout - because collusion and a shared source are handled differently.
- Interview each candidate separately and record what each says.
- Apply the national malpractice procedure, not a school-invented penalty, and tell both candidates in writing what is alleged and what they may say in reply.
Until then, mark both scripts on their merits and hold the marks. Identical wording is evidence, not proof, and a premature accusation that later fails is worse than a delayed decision that holds.
3. Explain how T's essay should be banded and what feedback would move it up.
Read the worked answer
T retells the plot and never addresses how the ending resolves the conflict, so the essay sits in the lowest content band: accurate but irrelevant to the question. Plot summary is rewarded only so far as it supports analysis.
The essay can still earn organisation and language marks, so the total will not be zero - a common over-correction in both directions.
Feedback should be concrete rather than general. Show T two sentences from his own retelling and ask which one states what the ending changes; then teach a two-sentence frame - claim, then evidence from the text - and have him apply it to a different narrative. Apply the band descriptors as written: if the lowest band requires little or no reference to the question, T fits it. Include T's script in the moderation sample to check that the marker is not simply rewarding length.