14.2.1
Holistic marking

This approach assesses students' written product as a whole, without separate reference to such sub-components of writing as coherence, breadth of vocabulary, accuracy, structure, etc. Typically, a single mark is awarded to the piece of work, eg on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 to 10 or A to E, and each mark is linked to some written criteria describing the threshold level of performance the student needs to reach to achieve that mark. This acts as the sole guide to the marker. For example:

Grade 1 Shows clear competence in writing. Work awarded this grade:

  • is well structured;
  • is coherent throughout;
  • addresses all aspects of the task;
  • develops all its arguments well;
  • displays a wide range of vocabulary;
  • employs complex syntax.

Grade 2 Shows competence in writing. Work awarded this grade:

  • is generally well structured;
  • is largely coherent;
  • addresses the task, but handles some aspects more effectively than others;
  • develops its arguments well, but may feature fewer details than Grade 1 work;
  • displays a good range of vocabulary;
  • shows a variety of syntax and is largely accurate.

Grade 3 Shows limited competence in writing. Work awarded this grade:

  • is adequately structured;
  • shows some coherence, but parts may be difficult to follow;
  • omits to address some aspects of the task;
  • employs some details to support its arguments;
  • displays a satisfactory range of vocabulary, but may feature some repetition;
  • shows inconsistency in use of syntax and features several errors.

Grade 4 Shows minimal competence in writing. Work awarded this grade:

  • is inadequately structured;
  • is difficult to follow and rarely fully coherent;
  • only addresses a small part of the task;
  • fails to support its arguments with much detail at all;
  • employs a narrow range of vocabulary;
  • demonstrates a very uncertain grasp of grammar and features a very large number of errors.

Grade 5 Shows lack of competence in writing. Work awarded this grade:

  • is very poorly organized, with no clear structure;
  • is impossible to follow in some sections and generally lacks coherence;
  • does not address the task;
  • includes little or no detail;
  • employs an extremely limited vocabulary;
  • features frequent and serious errors of grammar; well over half of the work is inaccurate.

There are both advantages and drawbacks to this type of approach. On the plus side, one can note that:

  • marking scale and standards are clear to all;
  • markers can achieve a high degree of comparability and reliability;
  • it tends to be positive in its approach to marking;
  • it lends itself to assessment of a variety of free writing tasks.

On the other hand:

  • broad categories may not differentiate between students sufficiently;
  • it does not provide much feedback to students at all;
  • the related criteria are general and do not allow for the demands of different writing tasks (eg discursive essay versus letter of complaint).

 
previous button
next button

contents button