The evidence for this learner does not meet the minimum standard required for Achieved.

These three texts have been generated under naturally occurring conditions and over an acceptable period of time (as required by explanatory notes – ENs – 2 and 3). Conventional English has been used (EN 4).  The audiences for the texts are stated, and there are at least two different purposes across the texts (persuasive and personal response/expressive), as required by the outcome 1 range.  Note that evidence requirements – ERs – 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 (and ER 1.4 to a certain extent) require the learner to have a clear purpose and audience in mind when writing, and the assessor to consider the appropriateness of each text in terms of these. It would have been preferable if there were a variety of audiences for the texts in this portfolio: writing for class members or teachers does not give the strongest opportunity for the learner to produce evidence of their transfer of the skills to “real life” readers of their writing (EN 1).

This portfolio, however, does not contain texts of sufficient length and complexity to inform a judgement with regard to ENs 3 and 5.  Although at least one text is continuous and paragraphed (ER 1.2), there is no text of at least 200 words (EN 5). (Text 3 almost achieves this length, but has limited ideas and technical issues.)  EN 5 may have been met if texts one and two had been sustained longer and the first two paragraphs of text two were not repetitive.  One text needs to be at least 200 words in length, and overall the texts total around 500 words (as a guide) to meet EN 5.  EN 3 requires the assessor to consider the portfolio as a whole, along with whether all ERs have been evidenced in each written text, when making their decision about whether they are satisfied that the learner has demonstrated ongoing competence against the standard as a whole.

Text one (China)

The ideas are undeveloped for the level of the audience’s expectation and comprehension (class mates) (ER 1.1).  The repetitive sentence structures [note 1] and language [note 2] used do not meet the level required by EN 5 (refer clarifications of this standard, and koru 4 of the Write to communicate Adult Literacy Learning Progressions).  The organisation of ideas is too simplistic for the level required (I liked/I didn’t like), and does not cohere (scenery, food, instruments all in first paragraph) (ER 1.2). Some fundamental technical errors – spelling/punctuation [note 3], grammatical expression [note 4] – contribute to the lack of controlled communication in terms of audience, and therefore do not meet ER 1.4.

Text two (King Tut)

The ideas are not organised sufficiently to meet ER 1.2, as they are circular and contradictory: they do not show evidence of an organisation principle but rather a jotting down of the next idea [examples, note 5].  Run on sentences contribute to the lack of control of the ideas [examples, note 6] and omitted capital letters for titles in this instance matter because the piece is about persons of status [note 7] (ER 1.4).

Text three (Alice) 

The ideas are not sufficiently developed, controlled or expressed to meet the requirements of a film review (ER 1.2).  Ideas are undeveloped through repetition (e.g. the movie character’s opinions are always nice/not always nice), while run-on sentences [examples, note 8] and expression errors [examples, note 9] contribute to the weaknesses in organisation and communication of ideas to support a review purpose (ER 1.4).