According to CEF there are basically three ways in which descriptors

can be presented for use as assessment criteria:

Firstly, descriptors can be presented as a scale often combining
descriptors for different
categories into one holistic paragraph per level. This is a very
common approach.
Secondly, they can be presented as a checklist, usually with one
checklist per relevant
level, often with descriptors grouped under headings, i.e. under
categories. Checklists are less usual for live assessment.
Thirdly, they can be presented as a grid of selected categories, in
effect as a set of parallel
scales for separate categories. This approach makes it possible to
give a diagnostic
profile. However, there are limits to the number of categories that
assessors can
cope with.
There are two distinctly different ways in which one can provide a
grid of sub-scales:
Proficiency Scale: by providing a profile grid defining the relevant
levels for certain categories, for example from Levels A2 to B2.
Assessment is then made directly onto those levels, possibly using
further refinements like a second digit or pluses to give greater
differentiation if desired. Thus even though the performance test was
aimed at Level B1, and even if none of the learners had reached
Level B2, it would still be possible for stronger learners to be credited
with B1+, B1++
Examination Rating Scale: by selecting or defining a descriptor for
each relevant
category which describes the desired pass standard or norm for a
particular module or examination for that category. That descriptor is
then named Pass or 3 and the scale is norm-referenced around
that standard (a very weak performance = 1, an excellent
performance = 5).

The marking of tests is not difficult if students only have to tick
boxes or individual words. Assessment becomes more complex
when we have to evaluate an integrative type of activity.
Objective tests are easy to assess. The paper can be given an
overall score ( 10 or 100 or 75%, etc!). As for the subjective type of
testing assessors usually use marking schemes which can make
evaluation more objective.


MARKING SCALES
LETTERS, STORIES

MARKS Task Achievement Language Accuracy Register and vocabulary Organisation, cohesion, layout Overall Effect
9-10 -Coverage of all points
required
-No/very few grammar
errors
-Wide range of vocabulary
-Appropriate register
-Very clear organization
-Many linking devices
-Very convincing
-Very much original output
-Total relevance to
task
-No/very few spelling errors
-Wide range of grammar
structure

-Fully correct paragraphing
-Fully correct layout
7-8 -Coverage of all points
required
-Partial relevance to
task
-few grammar errors
-few spelling errors
-good range of grammar
structure
-Varied vocabulary
-Appropriate register
-Very clear organization
-Enough linking devices
-Mostly correct paragraphing
-Mostly correct layout
-Generally convincing
-A lot of original output

5-6 -Coverage of most
points required
-Some relevance to
task
-Some grammar errors
-Some spelling errors
-Good range of grammar
structure
-Somewhat varied
vocabulary
-Mostly appropriate
register
-clear organization
some linking devices
-mostly correct paragraphing
-mostly correct layout
-Somewhat convincing
-Some original output
3-4 -Coverage of a few
points required
-Little relevance to
task
-Many grammar errors
-Many spelling errors
-Limited range of grammar
structure
-Basic vocabulary
-Mostly appropriate
register
-Unclear organization
-Few linking devices
-Mostly incorrect paragraphing
-Mostly incorrect layout
-Not convincing
-Little original output
1-2 -Coverage of few
points required
-Very little relevance to
task
-Grammar errors
sometimes hinder
communication
-Spelling errors sometimes
hinder communication
-Limited range of grammar
structure
-Basic vocabulary
-Sometimes inappropriate
register
-Unclear organization
-Very few (inappropriate) linking devices
-Incorrect paragraphing
-Incorrect layout
-Not convincing
-No original output
0 -Coverage of few
points required
-No relevance to task
-Grammar errors often
hinder communication
-Spelling errors often hinder
communication
-Very limited range of
grammar structure
-Basic vocabulary
-Mostly inappropriate
register
-Total lack of organization
-Total lack of linking devices
-Message not clearly
communicated




- FORMAL/ INFORMAL LETTER
Analytical criteria Very good

100-90
Good

80-70
Adequate

60-50
Weak

40-30
Inadequate

20-10
Task achievement The letter is completely
relevant to the task, fully
developing all content
points; the format of the
letter is fully observed;
the purpose of the letter
is clearly and fully
explained;
the register is
appropriate throughout.
The letter covers the
requirements of the task but
the content points could be
more fully extended; the
format of the letter
is observed; the purpose of
the letter is presented; the
register is appropriate ,
although minor
inconsistencies are possible.
The letter addresses the
requirements of the task
but not all content points are
included; the format may be
faulty at times; the purpose of
the letter is presented but it is
not very clear; there are
inconsistencies in register.
The letter does not cover the
requirements of the task; bullet
points are attempted but many
irrelevant details are included; the
format is faulty; the purpose for
writing is missing; there are major
inconsistencies in register.
The letter does not relate to
the task.
Organization and
cohesion
There is a logical
progression throughout;
There is a logical
progression although minor
The text is generally coherent
but the internal organization
There is serious inconsistency in
the organization of the text; the
The text is not logically
organized and does not
the paragraphs are well
built, well extended, the
topic sentence is
clear; a wide range of
cohesive devices is
used effectively.
inconsistencies are possible;
the paragraphs are well built
but could be more extended;
a range of cohesive
devices is used effectively.
of some paragraphs may be
faulty; the topic sentence is
not always clear or may be
missing; cohesive devices are
used but sometimes they are
not accurate.
sequencing of ideas can be
followed with difficulty;
paragraphing may be missing;
cohesive devices are limited or
most of them are faulty.
convey a message; No
control of cohesive devices.
Vocabulary A wide range of
vocabulary is used
appropriately and
accurately; precise
meaning is conveyed;
minor errors are rare;
spelling is very well
controlled.
A range of vocabulary is
used appropriately and
accurately; occasional errors
in word choice/ formation
are possible; spelling is well
controlled with occasional
slips.
The range of vocabulary is
adequate; errors in word
choice/ formation are
present when more
sophisticated items of
vocabulary are attempted;
spelling can be faulty at times.
A limited range of vocabulary is
present; less common items of
vocabulary are rare and may be
often faulty; spelling errors
can make text understanding
difficult.
A very narrow range of
vocabulary is present;
errors in word
choice/formation
predominate;
spelling errors make the
text obscure at times.




Structures
A wide range
of grammatical structur
es is used accurately
and flexibly; minor errors
are rare; punctuation is
very well controlled.
A range of
grammatical structures is
used accurately and with
some flexibility; occasional
errors are possible;
punctuation is well
controlled with occasional
slips.
A mix of complex and simple
grammatical structures is
present; errors are
present when complex
language is attempted;
punctuation can be faulty at
times.
A limited range of grammatical
structures is present; complex
language is rare and may be often
faulty; punctuation errors
can make text understanding
difficult.
A very narrow range
of grammatical structures is
present;
errors predominate;
punctuation errors make the
text obscure at times.
General effect The interest of the
reader is aroused and
sustained throughout.
The text has a good effect
on the reader.
The effect on the reader is
satisfactory.
The text has not a relevant effect
on the reader.
The text has a negative
effect on the reader.


The scales of descriptors make up a conceptual grid which can be
used to:
a) relate national and institutional frameworks to each other, through
the medium of
the Common Framework;
b) map the objectives of particular examinations and course modules
using the categories
and levels of the scales.


Speaking Analytical scales

1) Discourse
management 40 marks
- relevance if ideas 10
marks
- coherence and cohesion 10
marks
- time constraints 10
marks
- fluency 10
marks

2) Grammatical resource 20
marks
- accuracy 10 marks
- range of structures 10
marks

3) Vocabulary resource 20
marks
- appropriacy 10
marks
- range 10
marks

4) Pronunciation 20
marks
- pronunciation and intonation 10
marks
- stress and rhythm 10
marks

Total 100
marks


Step 5.1- GW- Discuss the issue of subjectivity when it comes to
marking tests and show how marking scales can solve this problem

Suggested answer- by setting the adequate criteria students
assessment can be more objective

Step 5.2- GW- One of you makes an oral presentation on a theme
(eg. Relate a personal experience which had a great impact upon
your life). The others in your group will mark their scores according
to the marking scale and compare their final score to see how
reliable your test has been.

Answer key- open answer