Literacy - annotated exemplar

Standard 26622: Write to communicate ideas for a purpose and audience

Return to all Literacy annotated exemplars

Learner: N02 Result: Not Achieved

The learner work and associated assessment documentation presented here illustrates the grade boundary between Achieved and Not Achieved for this unit standard.  The commentary explains how the learner work has (or has not) met the requirements of the standard.

Read the standard Read standard 26622: Write to communicate ideas for a purpose and audience.
pdf file (PDF, 261KB) Download this for off-line reference.  Ensure you download this for access to the commentary when using the power point presentation.
Power point file (PPS, 438KB) Download this for use when leading a discussion session.  For the commentary, either download the pdf document, or print out the commentary below.

In the commentary below, references such as [note 1] are used to indicate aspects of the learner work or assessment documentation that the comment relates to.  These aspects are denoted on the actual exemplar by the corresponding number in a circle.

Commentary (click icon images to see a large version)
General quality of the evidence presented
Page 1 (JPG, 195KB) Page 2 (JPG, 183KB)
Page 3 (JPG, 366KB) Page 4 (JPG, 278KB)

Page 5 (JPG, 379KB)  

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

This portfolio is a Not Achieved because it does not show sufficient complexity to provide evidence of competency at the level required (refer explanatory note (EN) 5 and the clarifications of this standard). The three texts do not consistently demonstrate that the learner has control of the writing, including fluency, coherency and logical ordering of ideas.

In particular, evidence requirement (ER) 1.2 is not evidenced sufficiently because the ideas are not organised appropriately for the purposes in all three texts. Technical errors detract from the communication in two of the texts (and so ER 1.4 is not met).

However, the texts in this portfolio have been written in activities that have occurred in the learner’s English classes in the school environment, meeting EN 2.

While this portfolio presents word-processed evidence for all three texts, handwritten texts are equally acceptable.

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.

Comments about specific aspects of the evidence presented

Text 1 (Should the Highlanders jersey be Green or Blue?)

This text does not meet ER 1.2, as the ideas are not organised appropriately to achieve the stated purpose of expressing an opinion in order to persuade.  The learner has not proposed a clear point of view in the subtitle, and this statement (“Reasons why we shouldn’t”) does not relate to the initial question posed [note 1].

The reader requires additional background knowledge (that is, about the proposed changes to the Highlanders’ uniform) in order to interpret the writer’s ideas [note 2].  The text would be adequate if the purpose were to express ideas; however, in order to persuade, the writer needs to provide an introduction to the topic and some supporting background detail. Note that ER 1.1 (and ER 1.3) cannot be verified if the purpose and audience are not stated somewhere in the portfolio (either on the cover sheet, an optional evidence collection sheet, or the learner’s work itself).

Logical connections between ideas are not clear (e.g. the connection between the Highlanders’ performance and the change of uniform [note 3]). Overall, the text lacks coherency (e.g. repetition of language [note 6]) and a clear, logical structure (see clarifications: EN 5).

While the text contains technical errors in spelling [note 4], subject-verb agreement [note 5], word choice [note 7] and punctuation [note 8], these do not detract from overall communication.  However, errors that puzzle the reader (e.g. ‘for same reasons’ [note 4]) could be considered borderline for ER 1.4.

Text 2 (Fire)

This simple narrative account would need to be better controlled technically to meet the quality required (ER 1.4).

For example, the first paragraph comprises one long, run-on sentence [note 9] in which the relationships between the main ideas are unclear.  Inconsistencies in verb tense in the second paragraph [note 10] interrupt the flow; use of the present tense is also inconsistent with the stated purpose (recount). Misrelated pronouns [note 11] also add to the lack of clarity in the account.

Text 3 (Film Review: The World’s Fastest Indian)

This text is over 200 words, contributing to the overall portfolio requirement for length and complexity (EN 5).  However, technical errors detract from the communication (ER 1.4) and affect the organisation of ideas (ER 1.2). The most significant technical errors are the many long, run-on sentences [note 12] that interfere with the fluency and clarity of the text.  

Note that lack of control of punctuation often impacts on learners’ competence in demonstrating the ability to organise ideas (evidence required for ER 1.2), because punctuation conventions such as full stops provide the sentence structure required to separate and prioritise ideas.

Several key ideas are repeated throughout the text [note 13]; logical connections between them are not always clear.


Skip to main page content Accessibility page with list of access keys Home Page Site Map Contact Us