Marking Metalanguage

Working towards a better understanding of things can be hard...

As someone very interested in assessment, and the contexts that go with different kinds of assessment, I often find myself working towards a kind of multilateral understanding that can be shared between teacher and student. In more general terms, this means two things:

• Using analytical criteria grids wherever I can, so students can see how they perform in relation to particular skills.
• Using language that can be understood by students whilst maintaining the integrity of the rubric as a teacher's assessment tool.

The second of these dot points is perhaps the trickier of the two as there is a pre-existing metalanguage used by markers that should be retained as much as possible for the sake of clarity. One of the issues with metalanguage is that it can be inherently jargonistic; that is to say, different groups favour different shared lexicons when it comes to discussing and assessing the abilities of students, and there's no overall rule book that everyone everywhere is willing to adhere to.

Hey, that's life. 

One example of this is the use of 'sophisticated' to refer to an understanding achieved by a top-marked student, which  contrasts with other rubrics that favour the word 'skilful' as the top descriptor. How can we say one is wrong and the other is correct? Is an attempt to nail down our metalanguage to only one set of terms in fact a contradiction of the ethos of English as a subject that rewards independent thinking and multiple interpretations? And how do we reconcile this with the need of our students to have a clear guide to the terms used in our marking criteria?

I don't have the definitive answer to that, hence my earlier use of the words "working towards a kind of multilateral understanding". What I would like to offer here is a short guide to the English assessment metalanguage that I tend to use; a guide that has been designed for Advanced English student use in conjunction with peer assessment. The hope here is twofold:

1. Students become more confident in using a wider variety of terms when providing constructive critiques of their own work and the work of their peers.
2. Students gain an increased understanding of the sort of language they're likely to see in marking rubrics.

The following terms have been gleaned from school-based assessment tasks, HSC marking rubrics, and the metalanguage used by NAPLAN SMART data and the Literacy Continuum to describe writing standards. I have deliberately tried to keep it from being too long so as not to overwhelm students who are already trying to decipher a marking rubric, but I'm happy regardless to hear any feedback that can assist in the refinement of these terms (or the addition of new ones).

Cracking Open the Marking Terminology used by Teachers

Appropriate to Audience, Purpose, Context and Form: This terminology is taken straight from the English syllabus outcomes. It is asking if the response a student has written reflects the right text type for the question. Additionally, do the sentences reflect the level of care suited to the context (EG. An exam, or a performance), and has the student understood the requirements of the task?

Attempt: Anything on the page that demonstrates a student has tried, even without evidence of understanding, to engage with the question.

Basic: Student shows some understanding, or can use a skill to some extent (most likely not well or successfully). This can indicate a D-grade; slightly below-average.

Cohesive: The student's response 'hangs' together and assists the reader in understanding the composed text. It includes: using synonyms that fit, ellipsis of unnecessary repetitive words, using groups of words that fit together well, and using the right group of words to refer to a specific idea. 

Control of Language: Maintaining one kind of tense (EG. Past tense), keeping the same perspective throughout (EG. Third person), not breaking the subject-verb agreement (EG. Singular noun matches with a singular verb), and making the right word choices.

Effective: Student can do something with some degree of skill or higher understanding. Usually indicates a B-grade; above-average.

Evaluates: Makes a judgment, shows an opinion. Matches up with questions that use the phrase 'To what extent'.

Implied: Something that cannot be obviously seen in the response. The teacher may judge that certain elements in the response indicate the student understands something, or can do something.

Judicious: The student has put thought into what details or examples they choose to use. Could also refer to the deliberate ellipsis of unnecessary details, or purposefully not doubling up on the same kind of technique or example, or matching supporting evidence well to the thesis statement/topic sentences.

Limited: The lowest tier of understanding, or evidence suggests that a student is unable to use the skill being assessed. Indicates an E-grade; well below-average. Interchangeable with Elementary.

Satisfactory: Student has shown that they understand what needs to be understood, or can use the skill that needs to be used, but has done so in a 'workmanlike', 'un-showy' or inelegant fashion. Usually indicates a C-grade; average. Interchangeable with Adequate.

Sentence Variety: Uses simple sentences (one clause sentences), compound sentences (sentences with two clauses joined together that could otherwise be separated into two one-clause sentences) and complex sentences (multiple clauses that are dependent on one another for the sentence to work).

Skilful: Student is able to do something exceptionally well. Can indicate an A-grade; well above-average.

Sophisticated: Occupies the same level as Skilful; can indicate an understanding that goes above the majority of the age group.

Sustained: More than one page of writing.

Thesis Statement: The sentence that states the main idea of an extended response to a question, and helps to control the ideas within the paper. It should reflect an opinion or judgment that the student has made in response to the task's instructions.