Y06W13PA - Two Ways to Respond to Feedback

This week you wrote a comparative piece on two responses to feedback. Now you'll read another student's piece and decide how strong it is. Every module sharpens how you spot careful comparison and clear thinking.

Part 1

The Assessor Scorecard for

Comparative – Comparative analysis

Markers look for writing that compares two subjects fairly and shows what their differences reveal. Check each strand below to see what strong work looks like.

Ideas & Content

Specific differences, not just vague similarities. Observations that reveal contrasting values or approaches. Ideas that explore why each response is different.

  • Specific differences that: reveal contrasting values or approaches.

Structure & Cohesion

One comparison point per paragraph, not a mix. Both students addressed inside each comparison. Clear flow from one point to the next.

  • Organised so readers: can track each point of comparison.

Audience & Purpose

Equal weight given to both subjects. No hidden bias — evidence does the work. A fair analytical tone throughout.

  • Balanced treatment of: both subjects without favouritism.

Language Choices

Linking words like "whereas," "in contrast," "similarly." Transitions that show how ideas relate. Precise words that make differences clear.

  • Comparison words that: signal how ideas relate.

Conventions

Spelling and punctuation that don't trip the reader. Sentences that link reasoning step by step. Varied structures that help the argument flow.

  • Clear sentence structures: that show logical relationships.

Part 2

Today’s Marking Targets

Task in one sentence

Write a comparative piece on two responses to feedback, showing what each reveals about the student's thinking.

Let’s Focus

Two strands matter most this week: Ideas & Content and Structure & Cohesion. Specific differences decide whether the comparison reveals real thinking. Clear organisation decides whether readers can track each point.

Ideas & Content

Strong writing this week moves past surface differences. It explores what each student's response reveals about how they think. Why does one focus on fixing form while the other questions meaning? Strong comparison digs into the values behind each response, not just what was done.

What markers scan for

  • Differences explained, not just listed.
  • What each response says about how the student thinks.
  • Contrasting values or attitudes drawn out.
  • Evidence from the responses backing each point.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    The comparison describes what each student did without exploring why.

  • Strong

    The comparison reveals contrasting attitudes, backed by clear evidence.

  • Excellent

    The comparison uncovers deeper differences in values, with each point adding insight.

Structure & Cohesion

Strong writing this week builds one comparison point at a time. Each paragraph holds a single idea and addresses both students inside it. That structure helps readers follow the analysis. Describing Student A fully, then Student B, splits the comparison and weakens it.

What markers scan for

  • One main comparison idea per paragraph.
  • Both students addressed within each comparison.
  • Linking words that signal each new point.
  • Flow that moves smoothly between ideas.

Score Bands

  • Basic

    Structure alternates between subjects without clear comparison points.

  • Strong

    Each paragraph focuses on one comparison and both subjects are addressed.

  • Excellent

    Structure guides readers smoothly through layered comparisons that build on each other.

Now read · Student sample

Two Students, Two Paths

Year 6 sample · \~300 words

Student sample for assessment

Written by a Year 6 student in Southbank, Victoria, Australia.

Both Student A and Student B received the same feedback: 'Your ideas are interesting, but your piece needs to be more clearly organised.' Yet they understood this feedback in completely different ways, and their responses reveal how differently they think about learning. Student A heard the feedback as a task. She identified the problem (organisation) and found a quick solution (headings, paragraphs). Her response shows someone who wants to fix things fast. She'll get it done and hand it in. But her approach misses something important: she didn't stop to understand what 'organisation' really meant in her writing. She didn't ask whether her paragraphs were scattered, or whether her ideas appeared in the wrong order, or whether her introduction and conclusion didn't match her points. She just applied a surface fix. Student B, by contrast, paused. He acknowledged that he didn't understand the feedback fully. 'I'm not sure what she means,' he said, and then he thought about it. He wondered whether the teacher meant he needed to reorder his ideas, or rewrite his introduction. He realised that fixing the organisation would mean changing multiple parts of the piece, not just adding headings. His response shows someone who wants to understand deeply before acting. But this understanding also means more work. What each response reveals is striking. Student A treats feedback as instruction to follow. Student B treats it as a puzzle to solve. Student A asks 'What do I do?' Student B asks 'What does this mean?' Neither approach is wrong, but they show two different relationships with learning. Student A moves forward quickly; Student B moves carefully. In a world that often rewards speed, Student B's approach—to stop and think before solving—might be the one that leads to real change in their writing.