This week you wrote a comparative analysis of two approaches to giving difficult feedback — one direct, one gentle. Now you'll read another student's piece and judge how strong it is. Working through how assessors evaluate analytical writing builds your ability to apply the same lens to your own work.
Part 1
The Assessor Scorecard for
Analytical – Comparative piece
Strong analytical writing holds two ideas in view at once. It doesn't favour one approach — it examines trade-offs, names what each gains and loses, and explores what genuine progress might require.
Ideas & Content
Key similarities and differences identified, then taken deeper.
What each approach prioritises, protects and risks — the logic behind it.
Ideas that reveal philosophy or consequences, not just surface description.
-
Beneath-the-surface thinking: not 'one is direct, one is gentle' but what each prioritises and what each risks.
Structure & Cohesion
A systematic move through the comparison — side-by-side or feature-by-feature.
Clear links between ideas, so differences connect to larger themes.
The reader can follow the logic and see how comparisons build into insight.
-
Systematic comparison: the reader can follow the logic and see how individual comparisons build into larger insight.
Audience & Purpose
An objective, thoughtful tone — examining, not arguing for a side.
Sophisticated language that shows careful thinking.
Analysis that builds toward insight the reader hasn't already considered.
-
Objective analysis: the reader senses the writer is genuinely trying to understand both approaches, not selling one.
Language Choices
Comparative connectors — 'while', 'yet', 'both', 'neither', 'conversely', 'in contrast'.
Precise nouns and verbs that name what each approach actually does.
No vague, emotional or one-sided language that breaks objectivity.
-
Comparative language: language that holds two ideas in view at once and shows how they relate.
Conventions
Accurate spelling, punctuation and complete sentence structures.
Consistent tense and clear paragraphing.
Proper punctuation around quoted material from the extracts.
-
Clean execution: no errors that distract from the analytical thinking.
Part 2
Today’s Marking Targets
Task in one sentence
Write a comparative analysis of two approaches to giving difficult feedback — one direct, one gentle — exploring what each prioritises, protects and costs against the standard of useful feedback.
Let’s Focus
Three strands matter most this week: Audience & Purpose, Language Choices and Conventions. The objectivity decides whether the analysis is fair. The comparative vocabulary decides whether the contrast is clear. Clean conventions decide whether errors interrupt the thinking.
Audience & Purpose
Assessors look for evidence you are thinking analytically — examining both approaches fairly, with genuine curiosity about each. You shouldn't advocate for one approach; you help the reader understand the logic and consequences of both. Strong analytical writing sounds like the writer is working hard to see clearly.
What markers scan for
- An opening that introduces both approaches without immediately judging one as better.
- Fair examination of both, with no obvious favouritism.
- No emotionally charged words like 'obviously' or 'ridiculous'.
Score Bands
-
Basic
The writer favours one approach or judges it explicitly; tone sounds like persuasion, not analysis.
-
Strong
Both approaches are examined fairly without explicit favouritism; tone is objective and thoughtful.
-
Excellent
Balanced, sophisticated analysis; both approaches are treated as serious even while consequences are examined.
Language Choices
Assessors listen for comparative language that holds two ideas in view at once. Words like 'while', 'yet', 'conversely' signal analytical thinking. Precise nouns and verbs matter too: not 'approach 1 is harsh' but 'approach 1 prioritises truth-telling over the relationship'.
What markers scan for
- Comparative connectors — 'while', 'both', 'yet', 'conversely' — used regularly.
- Precise nouns and verbs over vague ones like 'thing' or 'stuff'.
- No emotional language that breaks analytical objectivity.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Comparative language is minimal; descriptions sit side by side rather than genuinely comparing.
-
Strong
Comparative connectors appear regularly; nouns and verbs are precise and tone stays analytical.
-
Excellent
Comparative language flows naturally throughout; vocabulary is sophisticated and precise.
Conventions
Assessors check that spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and tense are flawless or near-flawless. That includes correct punctuation around quoted material, consistent labels for the two approaches, and clear paragraphing. Errors are distracting — they pull attention away from the analysis itself.
What markers scan for
- No spelling errors, run-on sentences or fragments.
- Correct punctuation around any quotes or references to the extracts.
- Consistent labels for the two approaches and clear paragraph separation.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Several spelling, punctuation or sentence errors distract the reader from the analysis.
-
Strong
Writing is clean; spelling is accurate, sentences are complete and quotes are properly punctuated.
-
Excellent
Writing is flawless or near-flawless; conventions become invisible and attention stays on the thinking.
Now read · Student sample
Two Ways of Giving Difficult Feedback
Year 8 sample · \~550 words
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 8 student in Canberra, ACT, Australia.
When someone asks 'How is my work?' they want to know if it's good. But they also want to know if the person is being honest. These two things—honesty and kindness—can pull in different directions, and how a person chooses between them changes everything about the feedback they give. The first approach jumps straight to the problem. 'It's pretty muddled, honestly. The argument doesn't really make sense until the third paragraph, and by then you've already lost the reader. The conclusion doesn't match what you were arguing in the middle. I think you need to start again from the structure.' This approach protects the truth. By being direct about what is wrong, the person giving feedback is saying: I respect you enough to tell you what I actually think. I trust you can handle it. This kind of honesty can make a person feel valued, because someone took the time to be real with them instead of pretending their work is fine when it isn't. But this directness comes at a cost. When feedback is blunt and focused only on problems, the receiver feels attacked, even if the feedback is fair. They may become defensive or stop listening. In this case, the receiver might think 'I'm bad at writing' instead of 'my structure needs work.' The feedback is honest, but it delivers the truth in a way that hurts the relationship. It also doesn't offer a path forward—it tells the receiver their work is broken but not how to fix it. The second approach is different. It leads with what is good: 'There are some really interesting ideas in here—I especially liked the part where you talked about the environmental impact.' Then it suggests what could improve: 'I think some of the earlier sections might benefit from a bit more clarity, just so the reader can follow your argument more easily as they go. The conclusion is strong.' This approach protects the relationship. It makes the receiver feel safe and valued. Someone who hears this feedback might think 'I can improve' instead of 'I'm bad at writing.' They are more likely to actually listen, because they don't feel attacked. However, this gentleness comes with a hidden cost. The approach uses soft language—'might benefit', 'a bit more clarity'—that doesn't name the actual problem. The writer of the work doesn't know exactly what is wrong, so they can't fix it effectively. The feedback feels nice in the moment, but it doesn't give the person enough truth to genuinely grow. It prioritises making the receiver feel good over making them better. The giver also hides their own honest response, which means the relationship isn't really as honest as it could be. So neither approach is complete. The first delivers truth but breaks the relationship. The second protects the relationship but holds back the truth. Real feedback that actually helps someone improve would need to do both: be honest about what is wrong, but frame it in a way that makes the receiver feel respected and able to improve. It would say something like: 'Your ideas are strong, but your structure needs work. If you reorganise so your main argument appears earlier, readers will understand what you're building toward.' That feedback is both kind and clear. It protects the relationship because the receiver knows the giver cares enough to help them improve, not just make them feel good. Both things matter.
