Gala rezultāts: ātrās vērtēšanas skala skolotājam

Vienā lapā ir tie paši četri kritēriji un līmeņi kā oficiālajā skalā, tikai apraksti ir īsi un tos var uzreiz pārbaudīt tekstā. Lapas apakšā ir vērtēšana piecos soļos, vienkāršs skaitīšanas noteikums gramatikai (no 10 teikumiem cik ir bez kļūdām vienkāršās struktūrās) un jautājumi, kas palīdz izšķirties starp 1+ un 2 vai 2 un 2+. Mērķa līmenis 2 ir izcelts. Ar šo lapu vienu darbu var novērtēt aptuveni piecās minūtēs.

 Task, toneOrganisationVocabularyGrammar
2+All points developed with detail. Formal tone with at most 1–2 lapses.Each paragraph has a clear focus; links mostly work.Frequent precise and formal words. Errors rarely make the reader re-read.Syntactic variety; errors mainly in complex sentences. Present perfect controlled.
2All points covered (one may be implied). Mostly formal; greeting or sign-off may be wrong.One paragraph per point; basic linkers, sometimes awkward.Correct everyday vocabulary. Meaning can be recovered from context.Simple structures correct in about 8 of 10 sentences. Passive voice controlled.
1+Some points missing; opening or ending missing, or half informal.No paragraphs or not related to content.Invented collocations, misspellings that create other words; the reader often guesses.Basic errors (agreement, plurals, past forms) in about half of the sentences.

Šeit parādīta tikai daļa (līmeņi 1+ līdz 2+). Pilna skala ar visiem līmeņiem, soļiem un jautājumiem ir pielikumā (PDF).

Piemēri uz līmeņu robežām

Skalai pievienota piemēru lapa: īsi fragmenti no vēstulēm katram līmenim, ar atzīmētām kļūdām un paskaidrojumu, kāpēc tas nav augstāks līmenis. 1+ līmenim izmantoti īstas, anonimizētas vēstules fragmenti.

Skatīt piemērus

Why the previous rating was too generous: fewer than 80% of the sentences with simple structures are error-free (about 9–10 of 17), and the errors are in basic agreement, plurals and past forms, which matches Level 1+, not Level 2.

Vocabulary range and control, spelling

Task1+22+
Appointment“I have a [big work] in [other place] and I [can not] come to the [meet].”
Why not 2: imprecise beyond high-frequency words; the reader has to guess what “big work” means.
“I received the order to participate in the [logistic] training, so I will be absent [in that days].”
Why not 2+: appropriate everyday vocabulary, but few precise formal terms; errors do not change the meaning.
“I have been assigned to a logistics course, which unfortunately coincides with our scheduled meeting.”
Why not 3: precise and formal, but within a familiar topic; no abstract concepts.
ComplaintReal learner text: “some issues [during in my accommodation time]”, “[technical air conditioner] in our room was not working properly”, “my stay was not [conformable]”, “I look forward to your [replay].”
Why not 2: several non-existent collocations and spelling errors that create other words; the reader must reconstruct meaning more than “sometimes”.
“The air conditioning in our room did not work properly, so we could not sleep well. The room was also not clean enough when we arrived.”
Why not 2+: correct high-frequency vocabulary, but simple; no precise complaint terms (faulty, compensation, refund).
“The air conditioning was faulty throughout our stay, and despite two requests, no technician was sent to repair it.”
Why not 3: precise collocations, but a limited range of low-frequency vocabulary.

Grammatical range and accuracy, punctuation

Task1+22+
Appointment“Last week I [get] order and I [go] to training on Tuesday, so I [not can] come.”
Why not 2: time references inaccurate in basic past forms; well below 80% error-free sentences.
“When we agreed the meeting, I did not know about the training, because the order came only on Friday. We [must to] discuss the budget.”
Why not 2+: simple past controlled (about 80%), but few complex structures and a basic modal error.
“If I had known about the course earlier, I [would inform] you sooner. The equipment report, which was requested last month, will be sent to you before the meeting.”
Why not 3: passive and relative clauses controlled; the error appears only in the complex conditional.
ComplaintReal learner text: “I told the front desk twice, but no one [come] to fix it.”, “Because of [these problem] my stay was not [conformable].”, “they told me that [is] not possible to change our room, [so] all the family rooms with views are occupied.”
Why not 2: errors in basic agreement, plurals and past forms; only about 55–60% of sentences error-free (under 80%).
“When we arrived, the room was not ready, and we had to wait for two hours. The staff said they would solve the problem, but nothing was done.”
Why not 2+: simple and compound sentences and simple passive are accurate; little syntactic variety.
“If the room had been cleaned before our arrival, we [would not need] to complain twice.”
Why not 3: complex structure attempted with a minor error; basic structures fully controlled.

Refleksija

Ieguvumi

  • No garas un vispārīgas oficiālās skalas tapa viena lapa, ar kuru darbu var novērtēt ātri un tomēr saskaņā ar oficiālajiem kritērijiem.
  • MI ātri atrada vietas, kur oficiālie formulējumi ir neskaidri vai pārklājas. Pašai tas prasītu daudz vairāk laika.
  • Labākais pārbaudes veids bija salīdzināt vērtējumus: manu, STANAGbot un vispārīga MI. Tas parādīja, kur tieši skala rada šaubas, un uzlabojumam bija reāls pamats.

Riski un ierobežojumi

  • Vispārīgs MI rīks vērtēja par saudzīgu un pārāk pārliecinoši apgalvoja, ka problēma ir atrisināta. Bez skolotāja vērtējuma to nevarētu pamanīt.
  • Skaitīšanas noteikumi un saīsinātie apraksti ir vietēja vienošanās, nevis oficiālas STANAG prasības. Tie jāsaskaņo ar kolēģiem un jāpārbauda ar vairāk darbiem.
  • Daļa piemēru ir MI rakstīti. Kursa laikā tie pakāpeniski jāaizstāj ar anonimizētiem izglītojamo tekstiem.
  • Īstus izglītojamo tekstus MI rīkos drīkst ievadīt tikai anonimizētus.

Nākamajā tēmā: 10. Summatīvās vērtēšanas darbs.

Materiālu faili
9-3-Gala-rezultats (pdf)
57,92 KB
9-3-Atra-vertesanas-skala (pdf)
87,30 KB