The evidence for this learner meets the standard required for Achieved.

Each of the texts in the portfolio demonstrates competence in each of the evidence requirements, as is required by this standard. The writing has been produced over an appropriate period of time (explanatory note 3) and the assessor has attested that the learner has been given the opportunity to plan, revise and edit each piece as required in explanatory note (EN) 6.  All three texts have been written as part of English class activities, and so are considered “naturally occurring” (EN 2).

There are at least two different purposes across the texts (one text to recount and two to give an opinion), and the audience for each is specified (Outcome 1 and range).

Note that more than one text in a portfolio based on recounting, narrating or story-telling is unlikely to show the complexity required for EN 5, or the learner’s ability to organise their own ideas, because grammar aspects such as tense and sequencing of ideas is already supplied for the learner through the narrative structure.

Similarly, if more than one text in the portfolio is based on the learner writing responses to guided questions, filling in matrices, giving definitions, etc, then – unless the learner has expanded a response considerably – the writing is unlikely to demonstrate the learner’s competence in organising their own ideas, as required for evidence requirement (ER) 1.2.

This portfolio would be further strengthened to show the learner can write to communicate ideas for a purpose and audience if the audiences were more differentiated across the three texts (rather than writing for the teacher or class), and that they represented “real world” audiences for one’s writing, as is intended by the standard (EN 1). For example, it is a vague expectation to write for the “teacher” or the “class”, in terms of making an assessment decision about whether the language or ideas expressed are appropriate to those audiences (ERs 1.1 and 1.3). If, for example, text 1 were to be written for publication in a community newspaper, then the learner would be given a more concrete sense of audience to write for.

The portfolio contains at least one text over 200 words (EN 5) and sufficient writing over all three texts to support the assessor’s decision.

While this portfolio presents word-processed evidence for all three texts, handwritten texts are equally acceptable (so long as they are legible).

While no evidence collection sheets have been submitted in this portfolio, they are not needed as all information about dates and activity through which the texts were written, and the purpose and audience for each text, have been provided on the Assessed Work cover sheet.

In the commentary below, usually only one example is given to illustrate a point.

Text 1 (Highlander’s jersey)

The ideas and organisation are appropriate to the stated purpose of presenting an opinion/persuading (ER 1.2).

The writer provides an introduction that orients the reader to the topic, provides some background detail [note 1] and states an opinion [note 2] meeting ER 1.1.

Paragraphs are not developed.  However, control of paragraphing is demonstrated elsewhere in the portfolio (see texts 2 and 3).

The informality of some of the language [note 3] is acceptable for an audience of classmates (ER 1.3). 

Technical errors in word choice [note 4], spelling [note 5] and run-on sentences [note 6] do not detract from communication (ER 1.4).  

Some vocabulary is more complex [note 7], as is the control of some sentence structures [note 8] – these two aspects support the attestation that the learner has revised and edited the work. This further supports the decision that this text is appropriate evidence of the learner’s ability to communicate for purpose and audience at the level of complexity required in EN 5.

Text 2 (The Fire)

This text is continuous and paragraphed (ER 1.2).  The paragraphs show development and are indicated correctly.

The ideas and organisation are appropriate for the purpose of a recount: key information is sequenced chronologically and past tense is used consistently (ERs 1.1 and 1.2). The writer has adequate control of organisational punctuation features such as full stops.

While the selection of content is not particularly complex, there are details added [note 9] that demonstrate the learner understands that the reader must be assisted to understand the sequence of events (ER 1.1). 

The communication is clear, despite minor technical errors such as missing punctuation [note 10], misspelling [note 11] and subject-verb agreement [note 12], meeting ER 1.4.

Text 3 (The World’s Fastest Indian)

Ideas, language choices and organisation are appropriate for the stated purpose of giving an opinion and for the text type of a film review (ERs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3). 

The writer introduces the topic [note 13] and provides details and examples in support of the stated opinion [note 14] (ER 1.1). 

Technical errors such as pronoun referencing [note 15], incorrect verb tense [note 16], spelling [note 17] and run-on sentences [note 18] do not detract from the communication (ER 1.4).