Benchmarked Performances - Writing AHS

Requirements of set task type are fully observed. The language is formal throughout. There is an introduction with a clear thesis statement, a well-developed main body, and a concluding paragraph that summarizes the main points. The title is appropriate and precise, it gives a clear indication of the direction in which the essay is headed. Content points 1 & 2 are addressed and fully developed. With each, there are at least two main points, with relevant supporting detail provided for all content points. Content point 3, however, is less well constructed. Generally, the arguments and supporting details provided in response to the task are both relevant and convincing. The candidate explains advantages and disadvantages well. At 383 words, the set word length is observed.

The performance has a very clear overall structure at the text level. There is highly effective use of paragraphing, and points are developed in a very clear and systematic way. Also, the writer marks relationships between ideas in a very clear way. She/he uses a wide variety of linking devices, many of them quite sophisticated (whilst; and even though; however; mostly; in order not to; therefore; moreover; due to; especially), thus achieving consistent paragraph and text level cohesion. The text follows the standard layout for the required task type throughout.

The candidate expresses him/herself clearly without any signs of having to restrict what he/she wants to say. She/he uses a very good variety of structures, as well as a remarkable range of complex structures and sentence forms (e.g. adverbs, passives, various passive and active modal constructions, gerunds, infinitive and participle constructions, conditionals). Also, the writer uses a very wide range of vocabulary for the set task (e.g. constitutes one of the most fiercely debated issues; social mobility; in urgent need of reform; to be put at risk; interest-free loans; hover around; surpass; pursue, etc.). The candidate easily varies formulations to avoid repetition, and she/he also expresses him/herself very confidently, clearly and politely in a register appropriate to the set task.

Overall, the text demonstrates very good structural control. There are hardly any slips or errors. Also, the performance shows excellent control of spelling. In addition, lexical accuracy is very high, with hardly any incorrect word choice. Given the advanced lexis used throughout, there are only two minor slips (unis, on the long run) in word choice. The text is also notable for its highly accurate use of linking devices, and the writer meets all expected standard punctuation conventions.

The requirements of set task type are only partially observed (style and tone are casual; inappropriate personalized language throughout; text lacks a clear thesis statement, no conclusion to round off the piece). The title is simple but meaningful and adequately worded (suitable for an essay, conveys a clear opinion). All content points are addressed. CPs 1 is reasonably well developed, CPs 2 and 3 less so, as they repeat the ideas used (i.e. learning for experience). Supporting details are generally provided. CP 1 provides a detailed narrative passage analyzing a risk taken. CP 2 argues that risks need to be taken to explore personal boundaries, learn from mistakes and explore new things. However, these ideas are repeated in CP3. The set word length is observed (361 W).

The text has a satisfactory overall structure at the text level. The introduction and three content points are clearly recognizable, but a concluding paragraph is missing. The text generally follows paragraphing conventions, in the sense that paragraphs are introduced by topic sentences followed by one or more main points and supporting details. The candidate develops points largely systematically (on paragraph level, thoughts are developed in a way that they can generally be followed). Some relationships between ideas are marked, other ideas, however, are not logically connected (e.g. … we decided to go to a funpark, in a funpark are lots of jumps and stuff; Once we have risked something we know if we are good enough for that or we don’t make it and fail in some way). The writer uses a limited number of linking devices (e.g. however, first of all, after a while, so).

The candidate expresses her/himself clearly, although there are some signs of restriction (e.g. vague expressions like thing(s), stuff, and something, or repetitions like to jump over a jump). She/he uses some variety of structures (present, past, & future tenses; negations). Although she/he uses a range of complex structures/sentence forms, such as the present perfect, gerunds; modals, and passive constructions, conditionals, and relative clauses, the candidate only shows a good range of vocabulary to cope with the set task (e.g. to have a deep impact, boundaries, majority, define, surgery, skilled). Some expressions are repeated frequently, e.g. to take a risk in various forms, jump, learning from mistakes, boundaries. All in all, it can be said that the candidate expresses her/himself appropriately in the set task, and uses a sufficient range of language to express viewpoints and develop arguments as required in the set task.

The writer demonstrates good control of frequent patterns and structures (e.g. use of tenses is generally accurate). There are structural mistakes, but they do not cause misunderstanding. The performance shows good control of spelling. Lexical accuracy is reasonably high on the whole; any incorrect word choice does not usually hinder communication (e.g. not learning much for an exam). Accurate use of linking devices, except for However, today I know … . Only some of the expected punctuation conventions are met (faulty or missing commas, missing question mark). All in all, a reader seldom has to stop to re-read, even though there are some passages that require effort on the part of the reader (e.g. they don’t it again; Wheter it is a physical, such as…; We need to know where our boundaries and to be able to …).

The task type requirements are almost fully observed, although some passages use informal language (e.g. …and I hope you will keep it up like that; … some things of your new summer collection like the amazing new shirts …). The salutation and the closing are appropriate. All content points are addressed, but CPs 2 and 3 are not fully developed. Relevant supporting details/examples are generally provided, but there is some irrelevant information (e.g. Then three days later, my mom told me that …; … after opening the package I soon realized that …). The writer also highlights the personal significance of events and ideas (… I appreciate your services …; … I hope you will understand my problem …). At 260 words, set word length is observed.

The performance has a clear overall structure at the text level. The writer shows good use of paragraphing. Each paragraph has a meaningful introductory sentence signalling the intended message, followed by relevant information (e.g. CP 1: reasons for liking the company – variety of clothes & special offers; CP2: what went wrong – faulty package; CP 3: suggestion – send the package back without delivery costs & then you change the package). Points are developed largely systematically. Most relationships between ideas are marked by a variety of linking devices (e.g. even though, first of all, last but not least, however, then, now the point is).

The candidate expresses her/himself clearly, although with some signs of restriction (e.g. a very remarkable thing, I ordered some things). There is some variety of structures (present, past, & future tenses,; comparisons, questions) as well as a range of complex structures, like the present perfect ( I have been one of the most loyal custermors; … which you have offered recently), gerunds (e.g. after opening); modals (e.g. I have to repeat; suggetions that may help you). There are somecomplex sentence forms (e.g. relative clauses, infinitive constructions). The candidate uses a sufficient range of language to express his viewpoints, with some words and lexical chunks sticking out as appropriate in the context of a formal e-mail, (e.g. loyal custermors; I appreciate your services, concerning my last order, I have come up with a few suggestions, to receive my package, without delivery costs, etc.. The performance shows  a good range of vocabulary to cope with the set task.The candidate is not always successful in varying formulation to avoid frequent repetition, e. g the frequent use of the word package (5 times).

Although there are errors in frequent patterns and structures (e.g. the completely difference, finding a sollutions), the performance still shows good control of frequent patterns and structures. Other structural errors ( e.g. reported speech: … my mom told me that my package from you arrived), do not cause misunderstanding. Spelling mistakes occur (e.g. custermors, espeacially, sollutions), but they do not hinder communication. Lexical accuracy is reasonably high. There are some errors, but they do not usually hinder communication (e.g. the special offers made me feel pleasant, you did a mistake, your faithfully).  The linking devices in the text are used accurately, and most of the expected punctuation conventions are met. All in all, a reader does not have to stop to re-read.

The requirements of the set task type are only partially observed. There is a topic stated, but also an additional title (Use of sponsorship money, lifted from the prompt) which is inappropriate in a report. In addition, the writer often uses personalized language (we; our; I; my) and a number of contractions (I’m graduating, I’m writing, there’s not much to see, It’s a pleasure), which are also inappropriate in a report. The subject line (Sponsorship) and the section headings (e.g The benefits; Next year) are simplistic, general, and not adequately worded. The introduction and the conclusion are not formulated in an appropriate style. Although all content points are addressed, not all of them are fully developed, and there is considerable irrelevant information (especially the long passage in CP 2, in which the writer thanks the sponsor, or CP 3, the decoration in the biology classes). At about 370 words the set word length is clearly not observed.

The performance has a satisfactory overall structure at the text level, as the introduction, the three content points, and the conclusion are clearly set off in recognizable paragraphs. However, the text does not generally follow paragraphing conventions, as topic sentences are not effective, often being mixed up with the following main point (e.g. CP 3 A good thing is for which we could spend the money next year is maybe for a bigger school – buffet). When addressing CP2 the candidate states that “In Fact, there are many benefits.”, and continues with “We are really thankful for the money which you are sponsoring us and for the chances and opportunities which you make us possible, which I already mentioned.”, neither of which is a meaningful topic sentence referring to the heading of “The benefits”. Dealing with CP 3 the writer suggests a “bigger school-buffet”, but continues saying “It would be way better, if there would be more healthy-food selled”, which leaves the reader confused as to what the main idea is – size or health issues. This is evidence that the writer finds it difficult to develop points largely systematically, and that he/she links only shorter, simple elements into a connected linear sequence. The performance shows a limited number of linking devices used (also, furthermore, another, because; and). Visually, he/she follows the standard layout for the required task type only some of the time. There are frequent one-sentence units that end in mid-line and are thus suggestive of a paragraph, but they are not set off from each other by an empty line.

The candidate is occasionally unable to express him/herself clearly due to lexical and grammatical restrictions. There is some variety of structures (adverbs: nearly; really; eventually; passives: were damaged; modals: could; would; relative clauses: which would be nice; going-to future). However, the candidate only occasionally uses complex sentence forms (which could be nice; by considering), and the performance shows a limited range of vocabulary to cope with the set task, resulting in frequent repetition (e.g. a good thing / a big thing / another thing; big opportunity / big benefit; really necessary / really hard to …). Stylistically, the candidate sometimes fails to express him/herself properly in the set task (e.g It would be way better; Eventually for a new “decoration” in the biology classes).

The candidate shows limited control of frequent patterns and structures (tenses: spend; selled; prepositions: send for; articles: books for school library; present/past: are lost/got lost; get sponsored from you). Errors occur (we used to spend; I attend to go; healthy food selled) and structural mistakes sometimes cause misunderstanding (which you make us possible; if there would be; happy about the receiving; nearly spent 5000 €). There is noticeable lexical and structural influence from other languages (eventually also for a new decoration; get sponsored from you; a good equipment; make us possible; the last 1000 €; books fell apart). Also, the spelling is frequently inaccurate (considring; in Fact; equipment; oldr; its; Im). All in all, the text requires effort on the part of the reader, particularly in the introduction and in the conclusion.