Structure & Cohesion
Organised by idea, not by alternating cases.
Related observations grouped together.
The second case builds on, contrasts with or complicates the first.
Transitions guide the reader through your thinking.
-
Architecture: how ideas connect and build, not just appear one after another.
Language Choices
Precise words that capture the exact quality you see.
No vague terms like 'good' or 'bad'.
Verbs like 'reveals,' 'suggests,' 'shows,' 'masks' make claims.
Language that points to cause and effect or hidden patterns.
-
Precision: exact language that claims something specific about the cases.
Ideas & Content
Your analysis should find a real tension or insight — not just list features. The strongest writing moves past 'Ryan talks, Mei is quiet' and asks what each approach reveals about how these students understand discussion. Your main idea should make that tension visible.
What markers scan for
- Move past surface description into a real observation.
- Name a specific tension or pattern in the two approaches.
- Ask what each student's behaviour says about how they view discussion.
- Use this insight to shape the whole response.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Names what each student does but treats the observations as separate points rather than building unified analysis.
-
Strong
Names a real tension or pattern — Ryan's talk may mask weak listening; Mei's silence may reflect deeper thought — and uses it throughout.
-
Excellent
Builds a careful analysis showing what each approach reveals about how the student understands discussion's purpose.
Structure & Cohesion
Try organising by idea — not by alternating cases. Open with what each contributes, then move to what each withholds, then examine what productive discussion really needs. This builds toward a bigger conclusion. Use phrases like 'While Ryan…, Mei's approach reveals…' to link ideas.
What markers scan for
- Group observations by idea, not by case-by-case ping-pong.
- Let your second observation build on or complicate the first.
- Use transitions that show how ideas connect.
- Build toward a conclusion — don't just stop.
Score Bands
-
Basic
Alternates between students or lists features without clear connections between observations.
-
Strong
Organises by idea and uses transitions that show how observations link; the piece builds toward a conclusion.
-
Excellent
Structure shows a clear analytical plan; each observation deepens understanding of the overall tension.
Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 7 student in Croydon, VIC, Australia.
Ryan and Mei represent two opposite edges of discussion participation, and examining what each approach costs reveals something important: visibility and depth rarely arrive together. Ryan is everywhere in the room-he answers quickly, builds on others' ideas, and rarely stays silent. His classmates sometimes wait to hear what he thinks before offering their own ideas, which suggests he is seen as authoritative. But notice what his habit of quick answers might prevent: the deeper listening that comes from sitting with confusion, or the realisation that his first thought might not be his best one. When he builds on others' ideas, he often steers back to his own, which means he is not truly following the conversation; he is using it as a launchpad for his own thinking. Mei offers the opposite. When she does speak-late, after many others have contributed-her comment is usually more developed than anyone else's. Her written work shows she has been thinking hard about the same questions the class discusses, which tells us she is engaged even when she is silent. But this approach has its own cost: the class never gets to see her thinking as it develops. She cannot test ideas in real time or benefit from someone challenging her thinking in the moment. Her silence might protect her from saying something imperfect, but it also means she never experiences the productive struggle of refining ideas aloud. What emerges from this comparison is that genuine discussion requires both visibility and depth-the willingness to speak before you are certain, combined with real listening to others. It requires contributing your own ideas while also genuinely hearing where others are coming from. Neither Ryan nor Mei has achieved this balance. Ryan has learned to contribute but not to listen; Mei has learned to listen but not to contribute. The more productive discussion would ask both of them to move toward the middle.
