Assessment
Marking the comparison
Section B is one comparative essay worth 60 marks across all five objectives, with AO2 double-weighted. What follows paraphrases the current published Eduqas grid and the recent examiner reports in practical terms, so that comments to students match how the paper is actually rewarded. Mark against your copy of the current grid; nothing here reproduces it.
Where the marks sit
| AO | Marks | In practical terms |
|---|---|---|
| AO1 | 10 | Conceptual argument led from the first line, academic register, four poems signposted in the introduction. |
| AO2 | 20 | Sustained close analysis of language, form and structure. The primary route into the higher bands; surface commentary rarely passes the middle. |
| AO3 | 10 | Relevant context integrated into analysis, never a separate paragraph or a biography. |
| AO4 | 10 | Poems linked in pairs, connections developed, similarities and differences both weighed. |
| AO5 | 10 | Critics and alternative readings embedded and evaluated, not simply reported. |
The five bands, in practical terms
- Band 5. Conceptual thinking, sophisticated AO2, seamlessly integrated context, productive evaluation of criticism, a purposeful argument sustained throughout.
- Band 4. A clear comparative argument with developed analysis and well-integrated context; connections thoughtful if not always sustained.
- Band 3. Sound understanding and some analysis, but commentary tends to the surface and context or comparison is bolted on.
- Band 2. General points, thin textual support, connections asserted rather than explored.
- Band 1. Description and narrative, little sense of method or comparison.
The structure that scores
The examiner reports single out one paragraph shape as the most successful:
- A linking topic sentence naming both poems and the comparative point.
- Detailed analysis of one Heaney poem.
- A comparative link.
- Detailed analysis of one Sheers poem.
This sustains the AO2 depth the double weighting rewards, and stops the rapid poem-hopping that flattens analysis. Four poems, two pairings, planned before writing.
Pitfalls to head off
- Learnt essays bent to fit the question, rather than answering it.
- Feature-spotting: naming devices without analysing effect.
- Context saved for the end, or reduced to the poet’s private life.
- More than four poems, so nothing is analysed in depth.
- Undeveloped connections: poems set side by side but not compared.
- Reporting critics rather than challenging, qualifying or extending them.
- Tentative language used as filler; it earns its place only when it weighs a real interpretation.
Comment-only marking with the desk
The marking desk is built to support a comment-only policy: students read comments, not grades, and you remain the sole source of level judgements. It is blocked from returning any mark, grade, level or score, both in its instructions and by a server-side scrub. A workable routine:
- Students draft a paragraph or answer in their own words.
- They run it through the desk and read the margin notes and comment.
- They redraft in another colour, responding to the notes.
- You mark the redraft against the grid, so your judgement lands on their best effort.
Running costs are small, roughly one to three pence per essay; a spend cap can be set in the Anthropic console. The desk works even before any key is added, falling back to a client-side guided self-review.