PT3 Instructions to Writing Examiners.pdf

PT3
Pentaksiran Tingkatan 3
Instructions to Writing Examiners
To be used from 2019
Revised version

© ES 2019 2 For Teacher-Examiner use only
CONTENTS
Introduction...................................................................................................................................3
This booklet...............................................................................................................................3
A note about terminology .........................................................................................................3
Security and confidentiality......................................................................................................3
The ES Examiner Management System.......................................................................................3
CEFR coverage of writing assessment scales.............................................................................4
The two assessment scales used for PT3 Writing ......................................................................5
Guidance on Using the Assessment Scales................................................................................6
Focus of evaluation.......................................................................................................................6
General instructions for marking .................................................................................................6
Marking Queries............................................................................................................................8
Writing assessment – Glossary of terms.....................................................................................8
Part 1 Assessment Scales..........................................................................................................10
Part 2 Assessment Scales..........................................................................................................11
Notes............................................................................................................................................12

INTRODUCTION
THIS BOOKLET
This manual is to be used by all teachers who are involved in the delivery and assessment of the
Pentaksiran Tingkatan 3 (PT3) Writing test.
Please note that there are separate documents that you will also need to refer to in the training
and delivery of assessments. Where relevant, these are noted in this booklet.
Examinations Syndicate (ES) welcomes feedback on this booklet. Teacher-examiners who would
like to pass on comments may do so via the examiner hierarchy system or directly to ES.
A NOTE ABOUT TERMINOLOGY
Given that the teacher is engaged as an examiner, from this point onwards the term used in this
booklet will be ‘examiner’ but this also refers to all ‘teacher-examiners’ who assess PT3 Writing.
SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
All test materials are restricted to examiners. Examiners are responsible for the security of
materials at all times when the materials are in their possession.
Examiners must not discuss the test materials with anyone other than a fellow ES Examiner.
During and after live marking, examiners must not, under any circumstances, divulge information
about the performance of candidates or the scores awarded until notified that they are allowed to
do so.
THE ES EXAMINER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
ES examining process uses a hierarchical structure where more experienced examiners are
expected to support and monitor the performance of less experienced examiners.
The hierarchy is shown below.
EXAMINATION PERSONNEL
ES
KPK (National
Chief Examiner)
KPN (State Chief
Examiner)
KPKw (District Chief Examiner)
PKw (District Examiner)
KPS (School Chief Examiner - Principal)
KPMP (Subject Chief Examiner)
PMP (Examiner)

TRAINING
All Writing Examiners (WEs) must complete an annual training phase prior to the live Writing test.
This may be conducted face-to-face or remotely. Regardless of mode of delivery, the following
must be covered in training:
 Standardisation of Assessment
This focuses on ensuring that examiners are able to interpret the assessment scales
consistently and appropriately.
CEFR COVERAGE OF WRITING ASSESSMENT SCALES
The assessment scales (excluding Content) are all derived from a wider CEFR-aligned scale. The
diagram below illustrates how each exam part covers various CEFR levels.
PT3 Part 1 PT3 Part 2
C2
C1
B2 Band 5
B1 Band 5 Band 3
A2 Band 3 Band 1
A1 Band 1
Pre A1
The overarching aim of the test and the scales is to provide as broad a level of coverage as is
feasible within the practical limits of the paper-based test.

THE TWO ASSESSMENT SCALES USED FOR PT3 WRITING
Two distinct tasks are developed to cover an extended range of abilities (A2-B1 primarily). The
first is typical of A2 task types, the second is typical of B1. The first task is focused primarily on
the A1-B1 range, the second is focused primarily on the A2-B2 range. Each task is marked using
scales to reflect the ability levels it targets and these assessment scales overlap as a result.
The Part 1 scale is focused on the A2 CEFR level. The Part 2 scale is focused on the B1 CEFR
level.
In this way, the scales (and their performance descriptors) have been developed as a continuum
as opposed to individual ‘stand-alone’ scales. It is important to interpret the scales in this way, as
illustrated below.
Part 1 Part 2
Cont Comm Org Lang Cont Comm Org Lang
C1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
B2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4
B1 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2
A2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0
A1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
As can be seen in the chart above, a Band 3 in Part 1 is focused on the CEFR A2 level of
performance because the task aims to elicit A2 features. In Part 2, Band 3 is focused on the
CEFR B1 level of performance because the task aims to elicit B1 features.
No traditional ‘weighting’ of marks is applied because the scales have an in-built weighting which
recognises the relative demand of both tasks. For example, a typical A2 ability candidate would
achieve mid-scores in Part 1 but lower scores in Part 2. Their cumulative score (i.e. in the region
of 16-20 total raw marks out of 40 total marks available across both tasks) would therefore
accurately reflect performance, adjusted for the dual focus of the test across A2 and B1 CEFR
levels.

GUIDANCE ON USING THE ASSESSMENT SCALES
FOCUS OF EVALUATION
Analytic criteria will inevitably overlap to some extent. They are divided so that a different focus is
brought to evaluating a composition. Briefly, the following is the focus of evaluation for each of
the sub-scales:
CONTENT
The focus is on fulfilment of task requirements, e.g. content elements are addressed
appropriately. If they are asked to give advice, they must do this rather than ask for advice.
COMMUNICATIVE ACHIEVEMENT
The focus is on the appropriateness of the writing given the communicative task, e.g. the correct
genre and register is used for the given task. Communicative Achievement also focuses on tone
and the appropriateness of language selected, which can include register, but also tone. For
example, a message can be formal, yet friendly, informal and yet rude etc.
ORGANISATION
The focus is on the way the text is put together, e.g. how coherent a piece of writing is and how
the ideas have been linked.
LANGUAGE
The focus is on the lexical and grammatical aspects of writing, e.g. range and control of
grammatical structures and accuracy.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR MARKING
 In every instance, the primary consideration is: which descriptor best describes the
composition being evaluated. If you are unsure about other considerations (e.g. this
seems to be covered under both sub-scale x and y; I may be penalising the candidate
more than once; but what about feature x? ; would this candidate pass or not; why is no
one getting a 5), go back to asking this fundamental question.
 Positive phrasing of descriptors does not mean that a performance at that level has no
weaknesses. By comparing a descriptor to those adjacent to it, above and below, it
should be evident what level of ability and weakness is being described. For descriptors 1
and 5 in a particular level’s scale, the adjacent lower and higher descriptor may be found
in the overall scale.
 Candidates may achieve high marks on one criterion but low marks on another criterion;
they should be marked accordingly. For example, a composition may cover and develop
all content elements, but use the wrong genre and register. In that case, it may get a 5 for
Content and a 1 for Communicative Achievement.

 When achievement of descriptors varies, (e.g. stronger vocabulary coupled with weaker
grammar, content elements covered but not appropriately developed), or not all parts of
the descriptor achieved, the adjacent score point may be the most appropriate.
 Score points 2 and 4: There are two ways for compositions to receive the undefined
levels (2 and 4): (1) a performance that reflects part of the higher descriptor and part of
the lower descriptor, and (2) a performance is clearly better than the lower descriptor and
also clearly worse than the higher descriptor.
 Base evaluations on the totality of the writing presented. For example, do not overly focus
on any one particular instance of a spelling error, and do not let that one particular
instance over-influence the candidate’s mark for Language.
 When in doubt about some aspect of a performance, look for evidence elsewhere in the
performance that might remove the ambiguity. For example, to determine if a vocabulary
or grammatical mistake is a slip or a systematic error, look for other instances of the
word or structure.
 Overlength/underlength scripts: Length is not a criterion in the mark scheme. Scripts
should be read in full and marked as presented. A response that is longer/shorter than
the guideline number of words may be entirely appropriate, and its score should not be
affected. On the other hand, an overlength script may result in irrelevance (assessed
under Content) or have an adverse effect on the target reader (assessed under
Communicative Achievement) and should be marked down as appropriate in those sub-
scales. Similarly, an underlength script may not exhibit an adequate range of language,
may not communicate effectively and/or provide adequate information, which would
affect its score in the relevant sub-scales.
 Lifting from the input beyond key words and phrases: Candidates should not be given
credit for parts of their response that have been lifted from the input. Lifted output may
however provide negative evidence about candidates’ abilities and should be considered
and evaluated accordingly.
 Varieties of English: Candidates are expected to use a particular variety of English with
some degree of consistency in areas such as spelling, and not for example switch from
using a British spelling of a word to an American spelling of the same word in the same
written response to a given task.
 Spelling is considered under the Language criterion.
 Punctuation is one factor among others under the Organisation criterion.
 “Generally” is a downshifting qualifier meaning ‘not in every way/instance’. Thus,
‘generally appropriately’ is not as good as ‘appropriately’.
 “Flexible” and “flexibly” refer to the ability to adapt—whether language, organisational
devices, or task conventions—evidencing better control and a wider repertoire of these.

MARKING QUERIES
It is important that WEs contact an experienced examiner if they are unsure about any aspect of
their marking or the application of the Assessment Scales so that a decision can be made quickly
and appropriately.
WRITING ASSESSMENT – GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The following definitions and notes are provided in order to support interpretation of the scale
content. It is not exhaustive and if you are ever unsure of any assessment-specific terminology
you should consult your Team Leader in the first instance.
a good degree of control able to use the correct forms and structures consistently.
a limited number of minimal usage. (e.g. words/phrases are repeated or used only once or
twice).
a range of everyday vocabulary able to use common words and phrases in the relevant context (i.e.
usage of high frequency vocabulary and absence of less common lexis)
a variety of cohesive devices a wide range of or no overuse of sophisticated words and phrases (i.e.
able to use different cohesive devices in each paragraph).
appropriately suits the context.
basic vocabulary words used for daily purposes.
basic, high frequency
connectors
linking words/ simple connectors (e.g. and, but, or, because, so, first of
all, finally, etc.).
cohesive devices more sophisticated linking words and phrases. (e.g. for example, in
conclusion, however, moreover, subsequently, furthermore, in other
words, as a result, for that matter, etc.).
communicates simple ideas in
simple ways
able to convey relevant ideas with minimum development.
communicating successfully able to convey the intended message in the most appropriate manner.
complex grammatical forms complex items (i.e. complex tenses other than the simple tenses (e.g. the
perfect tense, the progressive tense), passive forms, adverbs clauses,
etc. )
communicative task types of essays/text (e.g. letter, message, report, etc.)
content the points/ideas provided by the candidates.
conventions of the
communicative task
the way of writing a particular genre (the format, the tone, the register
and function). For example, a message should have a friendly tone, an
introduction and a closure.
errors mistakes that occur repeatedly.
fully informed content elements and/or task requirements are completely addressed
(covered) and appropriately developed.
generally not in every case but most cases/ almost always.

hold the target reader’s
attention
the quality of a text that keeps a reader interested and not easily
distracted.
impede meaning reading is hampered and effort is required from the reader to re-read
and understand.
irrelevances and/or
misinterpretation of task
the candidate has misunderstood the task requirement and included
non-related content elements.
isolated short units about
simple and concrete matters
disconnected patches of words, phrases or very short sentences that
communicate basic ideas.
isolated words and phrases disconnected patches of words and phrases.
less common lexis lower frequency words that most students would not think of using in
their writing (i.e. use of above-level lexis)
limited control frequent grammatical errors.
meaning can still be
determined
idea comes through despite errors.
minimally informed content elements and/or task requirements are inadequately addressed
(covered) and occasionally developed.
minor irrelevances and/or
omissions
some misunderstanding of task requirement and/or incomplete content
elements.
Examiners should be careful not to penalise a candidate who has
included extra information which adds to the response, such as a
personal anecdote, even though this may not be required in the task.
not informed inappropriate development of ideas and inappropriate expansion of
required elements.
noticeable errors that are clear which may or may not impede meaning .
on occasion sometimes used but not often.
on the whole informed target reader is able to understand despite minor irrelevances.
punctuation the use of capitalisation, full stop, exclamation mark and apostrophe,
etc.
reasonably moderately/in a satisfactory way.
reasonably well ideas are communicated fairly well using the correct genre/format.
relevant ideas are related to the task.
simple connectors use of simple linking words (e.g. simple connectors - and, or, but, so,
because).
simple grammatical forms words, phrases and basic forms of tenses.
simple ideas concrete ideas.
simple way ideas are conveyed directly.
some degree of control generally able to use the correct forms and structures.
straightforward ideas ideas connected to the topic are communicated in an appropriate way.
target reader intended audience.
totally irrelevant the content produced by the candidate has no link to the task.
well-organised and coherent good flow of ideas.

PART 1 ASSESSMENT SCALES
Form 3 Writing Part 1
Scale Content
Communicative
Achievement
Organisation Language
5
All content is relevant
to the task.
Target reader is fully
informed.
Produces a text that
communicates
straightforward ideas
using the conventions of
the communicative task
reasonably well.
Uses simple
connectors and a
limited number of
cohesive devices
appropriately.
Uses basic vocabulary
appropriately.
Uses simple
grammatical forms with
a good degree of
control.
While errors are
noticeable, meaning
can still be determined.
4 Performance shares features of Bands 3 and 5
3
Minor irrelevances
and/or omissions may
be present.
Target reader is on
the whole informed.
communicates simple
ideas in simple ways.
Text is connected using
basic, high frequency
connectors.
reasonably.
Uses simple
some degree of control.
Errors may impede
meaning at times.
1
Irrelevances and/or
misinterpretation of
task may be present.
Target reader is
minimally informed.
Produces isolated short
units about simple and
concrete matters, not
always communicating
successfully.
Production unlikely to
be connected, though
punctuation and simple
connectors (i.e. and)
may be used on
occasion.
Produces basic
vocabulary of isolated
words and phrases.
Produces few simple
only limited control.
0
Content is totally
irrelevant.
Target reader is not
informed.
Performance below Band 1

PART 2 ASSESSMENT SCALES
Form 3 Writing Part 2
Scale Content
Communicative
Achievement
Organisation Language
5
All content is relevant
to the task.
Target reader is fully
informed.
Uses the conventions of
to hold the target
reader’s attention and
communicate
straightforward ideas.
Text is generally well-
organised and
coherent, using a
variety of cohesive
devices.
Uses a range of
everyday vocabulary
with occasional
inappropriate use of
less common lexis.
Uses a range of simple
and some complex
a good degree of
control.
Errors do not impede
communication.
3
Minor irrelevances
and/or omissions may
be present.
Target reader is on
the whole informed.
communicates
straightforward ideas
using the conventions of
reasonably well.
Uses simple
connectors and a
limited number of
cohesive devices
appropriately.
appropriately.
Uses simple
a good degree of
control.
While errors are
noticeable, meaning
can still be determined.
1
Irrelevances and/or
misinterpretation of
task may be present.
Target reader is
minimally informed.
communicates simple
ideas in simple ways.
Text is connected
using basic, high
frequency connectors.
reasonably.
Uses simple
some degree of
control.
Errors may impede
meaning at times.
0
Content is totally
irrelevant.
Target reader is not
informed.
Performance below Band 1

NOTES

PT3 Instructions to Writing Examiners.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to PT3 Instructions to Writing Examiners.pdf

Similar to PT3 Instructions to Writing Examiners.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PT3 Instructions to Writing Examiners.pdf