Evidence of three written texts from three activities has been presented – from a Biology test [note 1], a Drama play preparation activity [note 2], and an English class speech activity [note 3].  This meets the requirements of explanatory note 2.  The activities in which the evidence was generated have occurred over time (13/8/10; 17/10/10; 25/11/10) [note 4], as attested to (signed off) by the teacher/evidence gatherer. This meets explanatory note 3.

There is sufficient evidence across the texts of use of conventional English, meeting the requirements of explanatory note 4.

Explanatory note 5 has been met because at least one text consists of 200 words (text 3), and cumulatively, the texts are of sufficient length and complexity to meet the requirements of this explanatory note.

At least one text (text 3) is continuous and paragraphed (as needed for evidence requirement 1.2).

The purpose for each text is explained [note 5] either in the purpose or in the text type statements in the evidence collection sheets. There are at least two different purposes [note 6] (explain/discuss and persuade), as is required by the outcome 1 range statement. The audiences for the texts are specified [note 7], which is necessary to enable outcome 1, and evidence requirements 1.1 and 1.3 to be assessed.

This is a borderline Achieved exemplar.  Overall (as required by explanatory note 3), and even with several technical errors, the evidence meets the standard’s requirements, and supports the decision that this learner can write to communicate ideas for a purpose and audience.

Text one (stoat control):  The learner has discussed the two methods of stoat control, and in doing so has explained more than one idea [note 8] (meeting evidence requirement 1.1).  The learner has organised ideas [note 9] (as required by evidence requirement 1.2) by naming the method, stating its value, and describing its physical appearance and mechanism. The language used is appropriate (zoological, technical and other scientific terms [note 10]; and is sufficiently detailed) as required by evidence requirement 1.3.  Although there are technical errors [note 11], these do not detract from the communication, therefore evidence requirement 1.4 is met.

Text two (Mary characterisation):  Several ideas are expressed that are relevant to the purpose and audience [note 12] (meeting evidence requirement 1.1).  The ideas are organised [note 13] somewhat weakly, but appropriately for the text type (from relationship to other characters, through details of positive, then negative personal qualities), and therefore meet the requirements of evidence requirement 1.2.  The language used is appropriate to the purpose and audience [note 14] (as is required by evidence requirement 1.3).  Technical errors [note 15] exist, but do not detract from the writing (evidence requirement 1.4).

Text three (Stressed out):  Several appropriate ideas (evidence requirement 1.1) are expressed in appropriate, personalised (“if you think…”) language [note 16] (evidence requirement 1.3), and are adequately organised (causes – positive – negative effects – symptoms – solutions) to meet evidence requirement 1.2.  Technical errors [note 17] are borderline numerous, but overall do not detract from the communication, thus meeting the requirements of evidence requirement 1.4.  Some usage of punctuation demonstrates a more sophisticated competence (e.g. the learner’s use of colons).