Two Markers Disagree on a Creative Essay
A 650-word creative/discursive essay task asks candidates to write about a young person leaving a village for the city. Candidate T writes 638 words in three long paragraphs. The title and dialogue are in Rumanyo; the essay has vivid sensory detail, a clear turning point, and a controlled first-person voice. However, there are 11 sentence-boundary errors, four comma splices, and one shift from past to present tense. The rubric is content and relevance 20, organisation 10, language 12, style and voice 8. Marker A gives 34/50 (content 18, organisation 6, language 6, style 4). Marker B gives 24/50 (content 15, organisation 3, language 4, style 2). The discrepancy is 10 marks, above the school's 6-mark trigger for third marking. The HOD must adjudicate in 20 minutes and cannot re-mark the whole script from scratch.
1. Identify which rubric criterion is driving the discrepancy. Use the mark breakdown, not impressions.
Read the worked answer
The largest gap is organisation (6 vs 3), not language (6 vs 4). Marker A gives style 4/8 while B gives 2/8; both may be reacting to the same feature - strong voice but weak control. The script has three long paragraphs for a 638-word essay, so organisation 6/10 is generous and 3/10 is harsh. The 11 sentence-boundary errors and four comma splices belong mainly under language, but they also affect readability and therefore organisation. The content gap (18 vs 15) is the smallest and is not the driver. The discrepancy is criterion confusion, not a disagreement about the candidate's ability.
2. Propose a final mark with a breakdown. Show how you reconcile the two markers.
Read the worked answer
Final: content 16/20; organisation 5/10; language 6/12; style 6/8 = 33/50. Content: the turning point and sensory detail are relevant, but the ending is rushed. Organisation: three paragraphs for a 638-word essay is weak; 5/10 reflects a clear sequence but poor paragraphing. Language: 11 boundary errors and four comma splices are frequent; 6/12 is mid-band because meaning remains clear. Style: the first-person voice is controlled, but the sentence errors sometimes blur it; 6/8, not 7 or 8. The final is nearer A than B because B's 24/50 treats language errors as if they erased content and voice, which the rubric does not say.
3. Recommend a marking procedure change to reduce future discrepancies on this task.
Read the worked answer
Use a two-pass procedure. First pass: markers annotate only organisation (topic sentences, paragraph boundaries, linking) without correcting language. Second pass: annotate language separately. Then award style last. Require markers to write one line of evidence for any score that differs by more than two marks from the sample scripts. The HOD's third marking should use the same breakdown, not a fresh impression. This reduces halo effects: strong voice should not raise organisation, and sentence errors should not lower content.