Format marks versus register in a formal letter
An NSSCAS class completes a directed-writing task marked out of 25: 5 for format and 20 for content and language. Learners must write a letter to the school principal complaining about the hostel water supply, give three specific complaints, offer one practical suggestion, and keep to 120–150 words in formal Oshindonga. One script runs to 212 words. It has no sender's address and no date; it opens 'Dear Principal' in English and then continues in Oshindonga; the three complaints are clear and specific (taps dry since 12 May, 90 boarders sharing two buckets, no water between 06:00 and 18:00) but the suggestion is only 'the school must do something'. The language is fluent and largely accurate. A second script is 96 words, has perfect format and a courteous close, but gives only two complaints and no suggestion. Both learners are predicted a good grade.
1. Award format and content/language marks to both scripts, explaining which features cost marks and which do not.
Read the worked answer
The 5 format marks are almost mechanical, so award them first and separately: sender's address, date, salutation, paragraphing, closing and signature. Script 1 has no address and no date - that is 2 of the 5 gone - but it is still a letter in shape, so 3/5, not 0/5. Script 2 has all the machinery: 5/5, despite being short.
Script 1 content and language, out of 20: three specific, dated, quantified complaints are exactly what the task asked for, so this is strong on content. The suggestion, however, is not a suggestion - 'the school must do something' cannot be acted on, and one of the four required content points is therefore missing. Language is fluent but wordy, and 212 words is well over the limit, which usually shows in repetition rather than in error. A fair band: 13–14/20. Total around 16–17/25.
Script 2: perfect format conceals a thin answer. Two complaints and no suggestion means half the required content is absent, and 96 words gives no room for development. 9–10/20 is generous but defensible because what is there is accurate. Total around 14–15/25.
Lesson for the class: script 2 'looks' better and scores lower. Format is 5 marks; the task's content points are where the marks actually live.
2. Should the English salutation be treated as a language error, a register error, or a format error? Justify against what the task actually asks.
Read the worked answer
It is a register failure that should be recorded in the language strand, not a format failure and not a spelling error.
The task specifies formal Oshindonga, and it is a letter to a principal in an Oshindonga examination. The format requirement is that a salutation exists and sits in the correct position; script 1 satisfies that, so the format mark for salutation stands. Nothing is misspelt: 'Dear Principal' is correctly written English, so it is not an error of orthography. What has gone wrong is the choice of language for the audience and situation - the learner has not sustained the required register, and that belongs to the language and content band.
Deduct modestly and once. A single slip into English at the opening does not turn a fluent letter into a weak one; but if the script slid into English for whole sentences, the language mark would fall sharply, because the candidate would not be demonstrating Oshindonga at all.
Say this to the class explicitly, because learners often believe that any English word is an automatic zero: the penalty is proportionate, it is recorded once, and it is about fitness for audience, not about being caught.
3. The 212-word script is the best language in the class. The teacher wants to cap it at 18/20 for length. Advise her.
Read the worked answer
Advise against a length cap, and for reading the length as evidence.
Unless the published scheme attaches a specific penalty to exceeding the word guidance, marks may not be deducted for length alone. What the marker can and should do is ask what the extra 60–80 words did: here they produced fluency but also the vagueness in the suggestion, which is already costing content marks. The overrun is therefore self-punishing through the descriptors, and a separate cap would penalise the same weakness twice.
The honest risk is the opposite one - that impressive fluency pulls the whole script up and hides the missing content point. So mark content and language as two decisions, in that order, with the four required content points ticked off before any language impression is formed.
What to tell the class: the word guidance exists so that answers are complete and controlled, not so that markers can count. A 212-word letter that says everything asked is fine; a 212-word letter that says three things well and one thing badly loses marks for the missing thing, not for the extra words.