PT3

Pentaksiran Tingkatan 3

Instructions to Writing Examiners

To be used from 2019
Revised version
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

© ES 2019 2 For Teacher-Examiner use only

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)

© ES 2019 3 For Teacher-Examiner use only

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.

© ES 2019 4 For Teacher-Examiner use only

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.

© ES 2019 5 For Teacher-Examiner use only

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.

© ES 2019 6 For Teacher-Examiner use only

  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.

© ES 2019 7 For Teacher-Examiner use only

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
a limited number of
a range of everyday vocabulary
able to use the correct forms and structures consistently.
minimal usage. (e.g. words/phrases are repeated or used only once or
twice).
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 linking words/ simple connectors (e.g. and, but, or, because, so, first of
connectors 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 able to convey relevant ideas with minimum development.
simple ways
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 the way of writing a particular genre (the format, the tone, the register
communicative task 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.

© ES 2019 8 For Teacher-Examiner use only

hold the target reader’s
attention
impede meaning
irrelevances and/or
misinterpretation of task
isolated short units about
simple and concrete matters
isolated words and phrases
less common lexis
limited control
meaning can still be
determined
minimally informed
minor irrelevances and/or
omissions
not informed
noticeable
on occasion
on the whole informed
punctuation
reasonably
reasonably well
relevant
simple connectors
simple grammatical forms
simple ideas
simple way
some degree of control
straightforward ideas
target reader
totally irrelevant
well-organised and coherent
© ES 2019
the quality of a text that keeps a reader interested and not easily
distracted.
reading is hampered and effort is required from the reader to re-read
and understand.
the candidate has misunderstood the task requirement and included
non-related content elements.
disconnected patches of words, phrases or very short sentences that
communicate basic ideas.
disconnected patches of words and phrases.
lower frequency words that most students would not think of using in
their writing (i.e. use of above-level lexis)
frequent grammatical errors.
idea comes through despite errors.
content elements and/or task requirements are inadequately addressed
(covered) and occasionally developed.
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.
inappropriate development of ideas and inappropriate expansion of
required elements.
errors that are clear which may or may not impede meaning .
sometimes used but not often.
target reader is able to understand despite minor irrelevances.
the use of capitalisation, full stop, exclamation mark and apostrophe,
etc.
moderately/in a satisfactory way.
ideas are communicated fairly well using the correct genre/format.
ideas are related to the task.
use of simple linking words (e.g. simple connectors - and, or, but, so,
because).
words, phrases and basic forms of tenses.
concrete ideas.
ideas are conveyed directly.
generally able to use the correct forms and structures.
ideas connected to the topic are communicated in an appropriate way.
intended audience.
the content produced by the candidate has no link to the task.
good flow of ideas.
9 For Teacher-Examiner use only
PART 1 ASSESSMENT SCALES

Form 3 Writing Part 1

Communicative
Scale Content Organisation Language
Achievement

Uses basic vocabulary

appropriately.
Produces a text that Uses simple
All content is relevant Uses simple
communicates connectors and a
to the task. grammatical forms with
straightforward ideas limited number of
5 a good degree of
using the conventions of cohesive devices
Target reader is fully control.
the communicative task appropriately.
informed. While errors are
reasonably well.
noticeable, meaning
can still be determined.

4 Performance shares features of Bands 3 and 5

Minor irrelevances Uses basic vocabulary

and/or omissions may reasonably.
Produces a text that Text is connected using
be present. Uses simple
3 communicates simple basic, high frequency
grammatical forms with
ideas in simple ways. connectors.
Target reader is on some degree of control.
the whole informed. Errors may impede
meaning at times.

2 Performance shares features of Bands 1 and 3

Irrelevances and/or Produces isolated short Production unlikely to Produces basic

misinterpretation of units about simple and be connected, though vocabulary of isolated
task may be present. concrete matters, not punctuation and simple words and phrases.
1
always communicating connectors (i.e. and) Produces few simple
Target reader is successfully. may be used on grammatical forms with
minimally informed. occasion. only limited control.

Content is totally
irrelevant.
0 Performance below Band 1
Target reader is not
informed.

© ES 2019 10 For Teacher-Examiner use only

PART 2 ASSESSMENT SCALES

Form 3 Writing Part 2

Communicative
Scale Content Organisation Language
Achievement

Uses a range of
everyday vocabulary
with occasional
Uses the conventions of
inappropriate use of
All content is relevant the communicative task Text is generally well-
less common lexis.
to the task. to hold the target organised and
Uses a range of simple
5 reader’s attention and coherent, using a
and some complex
Target reader is fully communicate variety of cohesive
grammatical forms with
informed. straightforward ideas. devices.
a good degree of
control.
Errors do not impede
communication.

4 Performance shares features of Bands 3 and 5

Uses basic vocabulary

Produces a text that appropriately.
Minor irrelevances Uses simple
communicates Uses simple
and/or omissions may connectors and a
straightforward ideas grammatical forms with
be present. limited number of
3 using the conventions of a good degree of
cohesive devices
the communicative task control.
Target reader is on appropriately.
reasonably well. While errors are
the whole informed.
noticeable, meaning
can still be determined.

2 Performance shares features of Bands 1 and 3

Uses basic vocabulary

reasonably.
Irrelevances and/or Uses simple
misinterpretation of grammatical forms with
Produces a text that Text is connected
task may be present. some degree of
1 communicates simple using basic, high control.
ideas in simple ways. frequency connectors.
Target reader is Errors may impede
minimally informed. meaning at times.

Content is totally
irrelevant.
0 Performance below Band 1
Target reader is not
informed.

© ES 2019 11 For Teacher-Examiner use only

NOTES

© ES 2019 12 For Teacher-Examiner use only