Outcome 3 assessment criteria
Outcome 3
Analyse the use of language in texts that present a point of view on an issue currently debated in the Australian media, and to construct, orally or in writing, a sustained and reasoned point of view on the selected issue.
Task 1
MARK RANGE
DESCRIPTOR: typical performance in each range
17–20 marks
Sophisticated analysis and insightful comparison of the ways in which the language of selected persuasive texts is used to position readers in particular ways. Highly expressive and coherent writing with confident use of highly appropriate metalanguage.
13–16 marks
Detailed analysis and careful comparison of the ways in which the language of selected persuasive texts is used to position readers in particular ways. Expressive, coherent and fluent writing and relevant use of appropriate metalanguage.
9–12 marks
Analysis and some comparison of the ways in which the language of selected persuasive texts is used to position readers in particular ways. Generally expressive, fluent and coherent writing and mostly relevant use of appropriate metalanguage.
5–8 marks
Some analysis and limited comparison of the ways in which the language of selected persuasive texts is used to position readers in particular ways. Clear written expression and some use of appropriate metalanguage.
1–4 marks
Little analysis or comparison of the ways in which the language of selected persuasive texts is used to position readers in particular ways. Simple written expression and limited use of appropriate metalanguage.
Task 2
MARK RANGE
DESCRIPTOR: typical performance in each range
17–20 marks
Presentation, of complex ideas in a sustained, coherent and logical argument. In an oral response, the skilful use of highly appropriate oral language conventions to engage an audience. Highly expressive, coherent and fluent written response. Accurate and detailed acknowledgment of sources where appropriate.
13–16 marks
A sustained, coherent and logical argument. In an oral response, an ability to use appropriate oral language conventions to engage an audience. Expressive, coherent and fluent written response. Acknowledgment of sources where appropriate.
9–12 marks
An argument which is generally sustained and coherent. In an oral response, an ability to use some appropriate oral language conventions to engage an audience. Generally expressive, coherent and fluent written response. Acknowledgment of some sources where appropriate.
5–8 marks
A superficial argument. In an oral response, variable ability to use oral language conventions to engage an audience. Clear expression of ideas in writing. Limited acknowledgment of sources.
1–4 marks
Little sense of argument. In an oral response, limited use of oral language conventions to engage an audience. Simple expression of ideas in writing. Little or no acknowledgment of sources.
Analyse the use of language in texts that present a point of view on an issue currently debated in the Australian media, and to construct, orally or in writing, a sustained and reasoned point of view on the selected issue.
Task 1
MARK RANGE
DESCRIPTOR: typical performance in each range
17–20 marks
Sophisticated analysis and insightful comparison of the ways in which the language of selected persuasive texts is used to position readers in particular ways. Highly expressive and coherent writing with confident use of highly appropriate metalanguage.
13–16 marks
Detailed analysis and careful comparison of the ways in which the language of selected persuasive texts is used to position readers in particular ways. Expressive, coherent and fluent writing and relevant use of appropriate metalanguage.
9–12 marks
Analysis and some comparison of the ways in which the language of selected persuasive texts is used to position readers in particular ways. Generally expressive, fluent and coherent writing and mostly relevant use of appropriate metalanguage.
5–8 marks
Some analysis and limited comparison of the ways in which the language of selected persuasive texts is used to position readers in particular ways. Clear written expression and some use of appropriate metalanguage.
1–4 marks
Little analysis or comparison of the ways in which the language of selected persuasive texts is used to position readers in particular ways. Simple written expression and limited use of appropriate metalanguage.
Task 2
MARK RANGE
DESCRIPTOR: typical performance in each range
17–20 marks
Presentation, of complex ideas in a sustained, coherent and logical argument. In an oral response, the skilful use of highly appropriate oral language conventions to engage an audience. Highly expressive, coherent and fluent written response. Accurate and detailed acknowledgment of sources where appropriate.
13–16 marks
A sustained, coherent and logical argument. In an oral response, an ability to use appropriate oral language conventions to engage an audience. Expressive, coherent and fluent written response. Acknowledgment of sources where appropriate.
9–12 marks
An argument which is generally sustained and coherent. In an oral response, an ability to use some appropriate oral language conventions to engage an audience. Generally expressive, coherent and fluent written response. Acknowledgment of some sources where appropriate.
5–8 marks
A superficial argument. In an oral response, variable ability to use oral language conventions to engage an audience. Clear expression of ideas in writing. Limited acknowledgment of sources.
1–4 marks
Little sense of argument. In an oral response, limited use of oral language conventions to engage an audience. Simple expression of ideas in writing. Little or no acknowledgment of sources.