Skill Align WACE Literature ATAR Year 12 - Free Online Pack 0
A complete independently authored WACE Literature ATAR practice examination marked out of 85 raw marks, with an optional Skill Align weighted reporting score out of 100.
- Paper
- Question and Response Book
- Reading time before commencing work:
- ten minutes
- Working time:
- three hours
- Assessment
- 85 raw marks
Standard examination items only. Across the three examination responses, use poetry, prose fiction and drama once each as the primary-reference genre.
Section One: Response – close reading (25 raw marks, weighted to 30%)
Suggested working time: 60 minutes. Choose one original unseen text: poetry, prose fiction or drama. Present a close reading of that text. The fictional writers do not appear on the applicable 2026 Literature prescribed text lists.
Question 1
25 raw marksTEXT A - POETRY Receipt for a Borrowed Coat Original Skill Align poem by the fictional writer Nella Venn
In the inside pocket, her name survives in laundry ink, one letter blurred by winters neither of us thought to count.
I called it mine after the funeral, though the sleeves remembered a shorter reach. At every crossing my hands arrived where hers had stopped.
The tailor unpicked the old label, then asked what name to sew. I said leave the square of paler cloth: an address without a resident.
Years later, a stranger at the shelter tries the coat beneath fluorescent light. It fits her badly, then warmly. She finds the pocket, reads the fading ink.
"Yours?" she asks. Outside, rain begins spending itself. I answer by holding out the buttons, small change in an open palm.
TEXT B - PROSE FICTION The Tool with Four Initials Original Skill Align fiction by the fictional writer Peren Holt
The screwdriver returned to the tool library on day forty-three. Its yellow handle carried four sets of initials and a thin seam of glue where somebody had repaired a crack.
Miri scanned the barcode. The screen displayed OVERDUE: 36 DAYS and recommended a replacement fee.
"It still turns," said the borrower, a mechanic named Sol. He placed it gently on the counter.
Miri rotated the handle. ML had been scratched near the shaft before the tool library opened. A second hand had added RP in blue marker. Sol's initials, SS, sat beside a new pair cut so recently that plastic dust remained in the grooves.
"Who is AK?" Miri asked.
"My neighbour. She fixed the handle."
"And used the tool?"
"To fix the handle."
The answer formed a circle the software could not classify.
The library's rules were printed above the counter: SHARE, RETURN, REPEAT. Objects belonged to the collection so that nobody needed to own every object. Yet the screwdriver had spent five weeks moving through a lane of houses. It had tightened a cot, opened a radio, replaced a gate latch and repaired itself.
Miri selected CHARGE WAIVED, then hesitated over CONDITION. NEW was false. DAMAGED ignored the repair. ACCEPTABLE sounded like forgiveness.
She created a category: ALTERED IN USE.
The category opened a warning: UNAPPROVED MODIFICATION MAY CONCEAL FAILURE. Miri pressed the handle against the counter. The glued seam held. It might hold for a week or for ten years; neither pressure nor gratitude could tell her which.
"Did AK use the library's repair guide?" she asked.
Sol shook his head. "She used the glue left from her hearing-aid case."
The answer made the repair less official and more exact. Miri pictured a kitchen table, a tiny tube squeezed over two objects that had failed in different ways. The library's insurer would call that uncertainty. The lane might call it competence.
Miri could quarantine the screwdriver until a technician tested it. That would protect the next borrower and erase five weeks of evidence that it had already worked. She printed a yellow tag: HANDLE REPAIRED - INSPECTION DUE. Sol read it twice.
"Does she get the repair fee?" he asked.
There was no repair fee. Volunteers received borrowing credit if they attended an induction, wore the library apron and used its bench. AK had done the work elsewhere, before anyone asked whether she was authorised.
Before shelving the screwdriver, she wrote AK into the maintenance record. The screen asked for staff authorisation. Miri entered her password, making the neighbour's work official through an account the neighbour did not possess.
The next borrower arrived for a drill and chose the screwdriver as well.
"Is this one yours?" he asked, pointing to MV newly written beneath the barcode.
Miri looked down. She had not noticed adding her own initials.
"No," she said, then revised the answer. "Not separately."
He turned the handle, saw the yellow tag and returned it to the counter. "I'll take the other one."
The other screwdriver was newer and anonymous. After he left, Miri moved the altered tool from the shelf to the inspection tray. In the maintenance record, four initials remained under AUTHORISED BY: MV.
She could delete the field, but not without deleting the names.
TEXT C - DRAMA Key Count Original Skill Align scene by the fictional playwright Sera Flint
Characters ELSA - outgoing night supervisor at a public swimming pool DEV - supervisor employed by the incoming contractor
A closed reception desk. Twenty labelled keys hang on hooks. One hook is empty.
DEV: The inventory says twenty-one.
ELSA: The building says twenty.
DEV: Buildings do not sign handover forms.
ELSA: This one leaks on documents.
DEV checks the labels: PLANT, OFFICE, FIRST AID, GATE.
DEV: Which key is missing?
ELSA: Quiet Room.
DEV: There is no quiet room on the plan.
ELSA: There was no room. There was a key.
She points towards an unmarked door beyond reception.
ELSA: Staff used it after difficult rescues. Ten minutes. No questions.
DEV: What did it open?
ELSA: That depended on who needed it.
DEV: A key cannot depend.
ELSA: Then call it a permission.
DEV takes the empty hook from the board.
DEV: My company cannot accept an unlisted permission.
ELSA: Your company has accepted the building.
DEV: We have accepted its plant, hazards and authorised rooms.
ELSA: So you accepted the chlorine store?
DEV: It is on the plan.
ELSA: Last summer a child locked himself inside it. The plan remained accurate.
DEV places the hook on the desk.
DEV: Was the Quiet Room supervised?
ELSA: Not while it was quiet.
DEV: Then it was a risk.
ELSA: So were the rescues.
A filtration pump starts offstage. Both listen until its rhythm settles.
DEV: Who has the key now?
ELSA: I locked the room for the last time at midnight. I put the key here.
DEV: It is not here.
ELSA: Then somebody arrived after midnight needing ten minutes.
DEV: Or you removed it so I would have to keep the room.
ELSA: Would that make the room less needed?
DEV: It would make this a performance.
ELSA: Handover is always a performance. One person points. The other pretends the pointing transfers memory.
DEV studies the unmarked door. He places the empty hook back between FIRST AID and GATE.
DEV: I cannot sign for what I cannot count.
ELSA: You can count the space.
ELSA signs the outgoing copy. DEV does not sign his.
DEV: If the key returns, I change the lock.
ELSA: Then you will have a new key and the same decision.
She leaves. DEV remains with both copies. He lifts the empty hook, reads its small handwritten label, then turns the unmarked door handle. It opens.
Inside is a chair, a sink and a wall chart for reporting critical incidents. Someone has crossed out the phone number but left the words YOU MAY STOP.
DEV takes one step towards the room, then hears the reception phone ring. He replaces the hook between FIRST AID and GATE and answers the phone without entering.
Blackout before he enters.
Section Two: Extended response (two responses of 30 raw marks, each weighted to 35%)
Suggested working time: 120 minutes. Answer two different questions. Use a different prescribed primary-reference genre for each response, and do not repeat the genre selected in Section One. The first three Section Two choices are genre-specific. Every Section Two primary text or poet must appear on the applicable 2026 Literature prescribed text lists. Penalties A penalty of 15% of the total marks available for the examination may apply for each failure to comply with the following requirements: • using the same genre more than once as a primary reference across the three examination responses; • using a Section Two primary-reference text or poet not included in the applicable 2026 Literature prescribed text lists; • answering a genre-specific Section Two question using a different genre from the one specified.
Answer TWO. Questions 2-4 are genre-specific.
Question 2 — 30 raw marks POETRY: Analyse how one prescribed poet uses pronouns, address or grammatical possession to test who may claim an experience.
Question 3 — 30 raw marks PROSE FICTION: Explore how focalisation in one prescribed prose-fiction text turns an inherited object, place or story into a conflict about interpretation.
Question 4 — 30 raw marks DRAMA: How does the movement of a stage property between characters redistribute authority in one prescribed drama?
Question 5 — 30 raw marks Reflect on how your own context has shaped your interpretation of one prescribed primary text.
Question 6 — 30 raw marks Discuss how genre conventions in one prescribed primary text make shared resources or shared knowledge visible.
Question 7 — 30 raw marks Analyse how an act of renaming changes relationships without fully changing material conditions in one prescribed primary text.
Question 8 — 30 raw marks How does one prescribed primary text use repair to reveal what its world considers replaceable?
Question 9 — 30 raw marks "To inherit is also to edit." Explore how a prescribed primary text affirms, complicates or rejects this claim.
Question 10 — 30 raw marks Analyse how the ending of one prescribed primary text separates legal possession from moral responsibility.
Indicative Response Guidance and Skill Align Practice Marking Guidance
Section One: Response – close reading (25 raw marks, weighted to 30%) Question 1
Text A — Receipt for a Borrowed Coat (poetry)
Reading 1: the poem treats possession as temporary stewardship. The title places the evidentiary promise of a "Receipt" beside the incompleteness of "Borrowed"; the coat passes from mother to speaker to stranger, while "badly, then warmly" separates perfect fit from ethical use. Enjambment, the movement across five stanzas and the open-palm button image make relinquishment an action that remains verbally unresolved.
Reading 2: the transfer can also be read as an uneasy attempt to convert grief into generosity. The sleeves that "remembered" a shorter reach and the paler square left by the label preserve bodily absence, while the fading name resists a clean story of release. The final "small change" may suggest moral growth, but its economic metaphor and the speaker's indirect answer leave open whether the stranger receives a coat, a memorial obligation or both.
Text B — The Tool with Four Initials (prose fiction)
Reading 1: the story represents communal use as knowledge that exceeds institutional categories. Focalisation through Miri makes the circular repair, the four initials and the work performed across the lane legible against the software's choices of NEW, DAMAGED and ACCEPTABLE. The improvised category "ALTERED IN USE" and the accumulating maintenance record show a shared object producing a distributed history.
Reading 2: the same acts may expose how institutions absorb unpaid care while claiming to recognise it. AK repairs the handle without induction, payment or an account, and Miri's password makes that work official under AUTHORISED BY: MV. The yellow safety tag and the next borrower's refusal provide counterevidence to a simple celebration of informal competence: repair creates value and risk, while preserving names may also preserve unequal authority.
Text C — Key Count (drama)
Reading 1: the missing key dramatises informal care that a contract cannot count. The empty hook, the unmarked door and the offstage pump turn absence into a theatrical presence; Elsa's shift from "key" to "permission" reframes the room as a practice of recovery after rescues. Dev replacing the hook suggests that listening can alter an incoming system before formal signature.
Reading 2: Elsa may also be staging the absence to force her preferred custom into the handover. Dev's accusation of "performance", his questions about supervision and the crossed-out incident number complicate the room's benevolence. The final phone call interrupts entry, so Dev neither accepts nor rejects the inherited permission; blocking, props and blackout leave care, liability and institutional memory in unresolved tension.
Other coherent readings grounded in precise language, form, structure and evidence may receive full marks.
The readings and evidence identified here are indicative only. Other coherent, evidence-based readings may receive full marks.
Mark allocation
- Skill Align practice marking guidance — not an official SCSA marking key
- Indicative content and marking guidance identify possible approaches only. Other relevant, well-supported and effectively expressed responses may receive full marks.
- Mark this response out of 25 raw marks before applying any optional weighting.
- Optional Skill Align weighted reporting: sectionOneWeighted = sectionOneRaw × 30 / 25.
Detailed marking criteria
Integrated response (7 raw marks)
Presents detailed and sustained reading/s using appropriate reading strategies and/or practices.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 7 | Detailed and sustained reading/s using appropriate reading strategies and/or practices. |
| 6 | Thorough and coherent reading/s using appropriate reading strategies and/or practices. |
| 5 | Sound reading using mostly appropriate reading strategies and/or practices. |
| 4 | General reading that makes some appropriate use of reading strategies and/or practices. |
| 3 | Inconsistent reading that may impose reading strategies and/or practices inappropriately. |
| 2 | Vague reading with little use of appropriate reading strategies. |
| 1 | Limited reading showing little understanding of the text. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Uses detailed close analysis of language, textual evidence, generic conventions and cultural context where relevant to develop and support the reading/s.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Detailed and sustained close analysis develops the reading/s. |
| 5 | Thorough close analysis supports the reading/s. |
| 4 | Sound close analysis mostly supports the reading/s. |
| 3 | Relevant analysis generally supports the reading/s. |
| 2 | Some analysis is present but often becomes summary or feature listing. |
| 1 | Limited evidence is identified with little analysis. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Uses precise genre-appropriate linguistic, stylistic and critical terminology to articulate and develop the reading/s.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Sophisticated, comprehensive and consistently apt terminology. |
| 5 | Comprehensive and appropriate terminology. |
| 4 | Consistent terminology mostly related to the reading/s. |
| 3 | Some appropriate terminology supports the response. |
| 2 | Infrequent or occasionally inaccurate terminology. |
| 1 | Limited and inaccurate terminology. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Expresses ideas in controlled language, style and structure suited to a sustained close reading.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Sophisticated language, style and structure. |
| 5 | Controlled language, style and structure. |
| 4 | Mostly controlled language, style and structure. |
| 3 | Generally clear expression with manageable lapses. |
| 2 | Disjointed expression and weak structure impede development. |
| 1 | Ideas are difficult to follow because language and structure are unclear. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Section Two: Extended response (two responses of 30 raw marks, each weighted to 35%) Questions 2–10
Question 2 — Analyse. Identify relationships among pronouns, address and grammatical possession and draw out their implications for who can claim experience. Use several poems to trace how changing grammatical choices widen solidarity, expose appropriation or complicate the distinction between poet and persona. Relevant concepts include voice, audience, ideology and representation. A response about voice that does not adapt its evidence to grammatical possession is insufficient.
Question 3 — Explore. Investigate how focalisation transforms an inheritance into interpretive conflict, not merely a plot dispute. Prose fiction is mandatory; relevant concepts include narration, perspective, gaps, context and reading practices. A thesis may emphasise restricted knowledge or competing inherited accounts; stronger responses analyse changes in focalisation and counterevidence. A generic inheritance essay is insufficient.
Question 4 — How. Explain the relationship between a moving stage property and redistributed authority. Drama is mandatory; relevant concepts include performance, blocking, audience knowledge, symbolism and power. Othello's handkerchief could support an argument that unequal knowledge of a property's route lets Iago stage authority, while Emilia's later account contests it; stronger responses analyse the property in performance rather than treating it as a fixed symbol. An insufficiently adapted character essay is not enough.
Question 5 — Reflect. Make the influence of your own context part of the literary argument rather than supplying detached autobiography. Identify a cultural assumption, social position, reading practice or prior experience that shaped an initial interpretation; then use precise textual construction and a plausible alternative reading to test how that position enabled and limited what you noticed. Relevant concepts include reader context, cultural assumptions, reading practices, values and interpretation. A personal anecdote without close textual analysis, or a prepared essay with "in my context" added to its introduction, is insufficient.
Question 6 — Discuss. Test the proposition that genre conventions make sharing visible rather than simply accepting it. Compare the work of at least two conventions and judge whether they reveal collective ownership, impose exclusions, or do both at different moments. Relevant concepts include genre, form, audience and representation. A catalogue of genre features without an argued judgement is insufficient.
Question 7 — Analyse. Relate the act of renaming to changed relationships and continuing material conditions. Relevant concepts include language, discourse, identity, power and context. Possible theses may present renaming as recognition, control or a partial reform; stronger responses analyse both linguistic change and stubborn material counterevidence. A prepared identity essay that ignores conditions is insufficient.
Question 8 — How. Explain how repair reveals a hierarchy of what the represented world treats as replaceable. Relevant concepts include representation, values, symbolism, form and ideology. A thesis may contrast repaired objects with disposable people, or show repair reproducing an unequal order; stronger responses analyse the process and consequences of repair. Plot summary about damage is insufficient.
Question 9 — Explore. Investigate the proposition that inheritance entails selection, revision or refusal. Relevant concepts include intertextuality, context, reading practices, genre and cultural value. A thesis may affirm editing as survival while exposing loss or appropriation; stronger responses consider evidence that resists the quotation. A prepared inheritance essay that merely repeats the claim is insufficient.
Question 10 — Analyse. Relate the ending's formal choices to a separation between legal possession and moral responsibility. Relevant concepts include structure, closure, ideology, ethics and audience positioning. A thesis may argue that closure exposes law's limits or complicates an apparent moral resolution; stronger responses connect the ending with earlier ownership patterns. A generic ending paragraph is insufficient.
Each entry addresses the command word, all parts of the task, relevant course concepts, genre requirements and possible thesis directions. A prepared essay that is not substantially adapted to the selected question is insufficient.
Mark allocation
- Skill Align practice marking guidance — not an official SCSA marking key
- Indicative content and marking guidance identify possible approaches only. Other relevant, well-supported and effectively expressed responses may receive full marks.
- Mark each Section Two response separately out of 30 raw marks before applying any optional weighting.
- Optional Skill Align weighted reporting: sectionTwoResponse1Weighted = response1Raw × 35 / 30; sectionTwoResponse2Weighted = response2Raw × 35 / 30.
Detailed marking criteria
First Section Two response (30 raw marks)
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Sustains engagement with the selected command word and every part of the selected question; question-specific engagement notes appear in the indicative guidance.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Sophisticated and sustained engagement with all parts of the question. |
| 5 | Comprehensive engagement with all parts of the question. |
| 4 | Thorough engagement with all parts of the question. |
| 3 | General engagement with most parts of the question. |
| 2 | Limited or simplistic engagement with the question. |
| 1 | Little or no engagement with the question. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Applies the Literature course concepts relevant to the selected question; question-specific concept notes appear in the indicative guidance.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Sophisticated understanding and application of relevant course concepts. |
| 5 | Well-informed understanding and application of relevant course concepts. |
| 4 | Sound understanding and application of relevant course concepts. |
| 3 | General understanding and some application of relevant course concepts. |
| 2 | Vague understanding of relevant course concepts. |
| 1 | Little or no understanding of relevant course concepts. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Uses detailed textual analysis of evidence, language, generic conventions and cultural contexts where relevant to develop the answer.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Detailed textual analysis develops and supports the answer throughout. |
| 5 | Purposeful textual analysis supports the answer throughout. |
| 4 | Sound textual analysis largely develops the answer. |
| 3 | Some relevant analysis generally develops the answer. |
| 2 | Examples are used but analysis is limited. |
| 1 | Evidence is sparse, inaccurate or largely unsupported. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Uses precise genre-appropriate linguistic, stylistic and critical terminology suited to the selected question and primary-reference genre.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Sophisticated, comprehensive and consistently apt terminology. |
| 5 | Comprehensive and appropriate terminology. |
| 4 | Consistent terminology mostly related to the answer. |
| 3 | Some appropriate terminology supports the answer. |
| 2 | Infrequent or occasionally inaccurate terminology. |
| 1 | Limited and inaccurate terminology. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Expresses a sustained answer in controlled language, style and structure.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Sophisticated language, style and structure. |
| 5 | Controlled language, style and structure. |
| 4 | Mostly controlled language, style and structure. |
| 3 | Generally clear expression with manageable lapses. |
| 2 | Disjointed expression and weak structure impede the answer. |
| 1 | Ideas are difficult to follow because language and structure are unclear. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Second Section Two response (30 raw marks)
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Sustains engagement with the selected command word and every part of the selected question; question-specific engagement notes appear in the indicative guidance.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Sophisticated and sustained engagement with all parts of the question. |
| 5 | Comprehensive engagement with all parts of the question. |
| 4 | Thorough engagement with all parts of the question. |
| 3 | General engagement with most parts of the question. |
| 2 | Limited or simplistic engagement with the question. |
| 1 | Little or no engagement with the question. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Applies the Literature course concepts relevant to the selected question; question-specific concept notes appear in the indicative guidance.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Sophisticated understanding and application of relevant course concepts. |
| 5 | Well-informed understanding and application of relevant course concepts. |
| 4 | Sound understanding and application of relevant course concepts. |
| 3 | General understanding and some application of relevant course concepts. |
| 2 | Vague understanding of relevant course concepts. |
| 1 | Little or no understanding of relevant course concepts. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Uses detailed textual analysis of evidence, language, generic conventions and cultural contexts where relevant to develop the answer.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Detailed textual analysis develops and supports the answer throughout. |
| 5 | Purposeful textual analysis supports the answer throughout. |
| 4 | Sound textual analysis largely develops the answer. |
| 3 | Some relevant analysis generally develops the answer. |
| 2 | Examples are used but analysis is limited. |
| 1 | Evidence is sparse, inaccurate or largely unsupported. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Uses precise genre-appropriate linguistic, stylistic and critical terminology suited to the selected question and primary-reference genre.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Sophisticated, comprehensive and consistently apt terminology. |
| 5 | Comprehensive and appropriate terminology. |
| 4 | Consistent terminology mostly related to the answer. |
| 3 | Some appropriate terminology supports the answer. |
| 2 | Infrequent or occasionally inaccurate terminology. |
| 1 | Limited and inaccurate terminology. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Integrated response (6 raw marks)
Expresses a sustained answer in controlled language, style and structure.
| Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 6 | Sophisticated language, style and structure. |
| 5 | Controlled language, style and structure. |
| 4 | Mostly controlled language, style and structure. |
| 3 | Generally clear expression with manageable lapses. |
| 2 | Disjointed expression and weak structure impede the answer. |
| 1 | Ideas are difficult to follow because language and structure are unclear. |
| 0 | No evidence of this criterion. |
Diagnostic Checklist
Unclear reading
Question/criterion: Question 1 - Reading/s
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: State a defensible reading in one sentence, then select two details that develop or complicate it.
Thematic summary
Question/criterion: Question 1 - Reading/s
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Replace a theme label with an account of how form, language and structure construct that possible reading.
Retelling
Question/criterion: All responses - Evidence
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Convert one plot summary into analysis that names an exact textual choice and explains its contribution to meaning.
Feature listing without analysis
Question/criterion: All responses - Analysis
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: For each named feature, add what relationship it creates and why that relationship matters to the reading or argument.
Insufficient close evidence
Question/criterion: All responses - Evidence
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Add precise evidence from across the text and analyse patterns rather than relying on one isolated example.
Inaccurate terminology
Question/criterion: All responses - Terminology
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Correct each term and use only terminology that accurately describes the cited language, stylistic or generic feature.
Forced critical interpretation
Question/criterion: Question 1 - Reading/s
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Test the reading against counterevidence and qualify any claim that the text does not sustain.
Contextual speculation
Question/criterion: All responses - Course concepts
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Remove unsupported context claims; connect verified context only where the text makes it relevant to meaning.
Weak genre awareness
Question/criterion: All responses - Genre
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Analyse at least two features specific to the selected primary-reference genre and explain why the genre matters.
Missed command word
Question/criterion: Questions 2-10 - Engagement
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Rewrite the thesis so it performs the selected command word and use that demand to organise each paragraph.
Incomplete task coverage
Question/criterion: Questions 2-10 - Engagement
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Underline every part of the selected question and add analysis for any part not yet addressed.
Wrong primary genre
Question/criterion: Questions 2-10
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Select the genre named by a genre-specific question and ensure the three examination responses use three different primary genres.
Non-prescribed primary text
Question/criterion: Questions 2-10
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Replace the primary reference with a text or poet on the applicable 2026 Literature prescribed text lists.
Prepared essay insufficiently adapted
Question/criterion: Questions 2-10 - Engagement
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Retain only material that directly answers the selected wording; rebuild the thesis and topic sentences around that question.
Weak structure or expression
Question/criterion: All responses - Expression
Raw score: ______ Optional weighted score: ______
Criterion requiring revision: ________________________________________________
Evidence from the candidate response: ________________________________________
Specific next action: Sequence claims cumulatively, use clear topic sentences and edit ambiguous or repetitive sentences.