Benchmarked Performances -
Writing AHS

Einleitende Bemerkungen

Sie finden auf dieser Webseite bewertete Maturaperformanzen von Schüler/innen an Allgemeinbildenden Höheren Schulen zu unterschiedlichen Aufgabenformaten der standardisierten Reife- und Diplomprüfung aus den Maturaterminen der letzten Jahren. Diese Performanzen wurden von Expert/innen aus einer größeren Sammlung von authentischen Schreibperformanzen ausgewählt und sollen den österreichischen Lehrpersonen als Orientierungshilfe und Trainingsmaterial dienen.

Die Bewertungen (auch Benchmarks genannt) und verbalen Beschreibungen entstanden im Rahmen einer Seminarreihe, finanziert durch das Bildungsministerium und durchgeführt durch die Pädagogische Hochschule Tirol unter der wissenschaftlichen Leitung der Language Testing Research Group der Universität Innsbruck. Das Expertinnengremium setzte sich aus Interessensträgern des Ministeriums, des BIFIE (Wien), der Universitäten, der Pädagogischen Hochschulen und Schulen zusammen.

Die vorliegenden Schreibperformanzen samt Bewertung sollen der breiten Öffentlichkeit, vor allem den österreichischen Lehrpersonen aber auch anderen Interessierten, zur Information zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Die Verfasser der anonymisierten Texte haben der Nutzung der Performanzen für Forschungs- und Trainingszwecke zugestimmt. Eine nicht kommerzielle Nutzung der Performanzen für diese Zwecke, zum Beispiel während eines Seminars der Pädagogischen Hochschulen, ist zulässig. Die kommerzielle Nutzung für zahlungspflichtige Kurse ist nur über schriftliche Erlaubnis zulässig. Dritten ist es nicht gestattet, diese Performanzen zu vervielfältigen, zu speichern, zu übertragen oder zu verkaufen. Bitte entnehmen Sie weitere Informationen zur Nutzung dieser Webseite aus den Nutzungsbedingungen.

Hier finden Sie die Unterlagen zur Beurteilung. Weitere Informationen zu den Vorgaben der neuen standardisierten Reife- und Diplomprüfungen entnehmen Sie bitte der Webseite des BMBWF oder der SRDP.

 

Verfügbare Performanzen:

 

 

 


Essay R-17-ES16

Click here to find the task. Click here to find the performance. Click on the arrows next to the headings to reveal or hide the corresponding benchmarks or justifications

 Benchmarks

Task type
Performance
TA
OL
LSR
LSA
Essay R-17-ES16 9 10 10 10
 Task Achievement (TA)

Requirements of set task type are fully observed. The language is formal throughout. There is an introduction with a clear thesis statement, a well-developed main body, and a concluding paragraph that summarizes the main points. The title is appropriate and precise, it gives a clear indication of the direction in which the essay is headed. Content points 1 & 2 are addressed and fully developed. With each, there are at least two main points, with relevant supporting detail provided for all content points. Content point 3, however, is less well constructed. Generally, the arguments and supporting details provided in response to the task are both relevant and convincing. The candidate explains advantages and disadvantages well. At 383 words, the set word length is observed.

 Organisation and Layout

The performance has a very clear overall structure at the text level. There is highly effective use of paragraphing, and points are developed in a very clear and systematic way. Also, the writer marks relationships between ideas in a very clear way. She/he uses a wide variety of linking devices, many of them quite sophisticated (whilst; and even though; however; mostly; in order not to; therefore; moreover; due to; especially), thus achieving consistent paragraph and text level cohesion. The text follows the standard layout for the required task type throughout.

 Lexical and Structural Range (LSR)

The candidate expresses him/herself clearly without any signs of having to restrict what he/she wants to say. She/he uses a very good variety of structures, as well as a remarkable range of complex structures and sentence forms(e.g. adverbs, passives, various passive and active modal constructions, gerunds, infinitive and participle constructions, conditionals). Also, the writer uses a very wide range of vocabulary for the set task (e.g. constitutes one of the most fiercely debated issues; social mobility; in urgent need of reform; to be put at risk; interest-free loans; hover around; surpass; pursue, etc.). The candidate easily varies formulations to avoid repetition, and she/he also expresses him/herself very confidently, clearly and politely in a register appropriate to the set task.

 Lexical and Structural Accuracy (LSA)

Overall, the text demonstrates very good structural control. There are hardly any slips or errors. Also, the performance shows excellent control of spelling. In addition, lexical accuracy is very high, with hardly any incorrect word choice. Given the advanced lexis used throughout, there are only two minor slips (unis, on the long run) in word choice. The text is also notable for its highly accurate use of linking devices, and the writer meets all expected standard punctuation conventions.

 

 

 


Essay V-05-ES16

Click here to find the task. Click here to find the performance. Click on the arrows next to the headings to reveal or hide the corresponding benchmarks or justifications

 Benchmarks

Task type
Performance
TA
OL
LSR
LSA
Essay V-05-ES16 6 5 5 5
 Task Achievement (TA)

Requirements of the set task type are mainly observed. The text has an introduction, a body and a conclusion, but the introduction does not contain a thesis statement. The title is meaningful and adequately worded. All content points are addressed, but CPs 2 and 3 are not fully developed. Relevant supporting details are provided, but some are repeated several times (e.g. everyone […] is able to study without costs; studying is available for the whole society; the current situation gives every person […] the possibility to study, and the idea of support for financially weak students comes up several times. The candidate mentions and explains advantages/disadvantages adequately. At 390 words, the set word length (+/- 10%) is observed.

 Organisation and Layout (OL)

The performance has an inadequate overall structure at the text level. Frequently the candidate links only shorter, simple elements into a connected linear sequence, and in some parts the connection between ideas is difficult to follow, especially in paragraphs 3 and 4. There are only a few relationships between ideas marked, mainly in CP 2, where the candidate also uses some linking devices (one negative aspect is …; furthermore; because; although; for example). Because of the frequently incoherent structure, it can be said that the candidate has difficulty in producing clearly intelligible continuous writing.

 Lexical and Structural Range (LSR)

The candidate is occasionally unable to express him / herself clearly. This can be seen in the frequent use of German idiomatic phrases (e.g. is always in connection with …; it is free to do it a second time; can do more studies). The candidate uses a limited variety of structures (e. g. statements in the present simple; simple modals; there constructions), which create a strong impression of repetitiveness. The writer uses some complex structures/sentence forms (gerunds, participle constructions, complex sentences/conditionals). He/she also only uses a limited range of vocabulary to cope with the set task, and thus some lexical limitations cause repetition (e.g. free education = repeated four times; without any/no costs = repeated four times).

 Lexical and Structural Accuracy (LSA)

The candidate shows limited control of frequent patterns and structures, (e. g. Saxon genitive: Austrian’s; articles: the entrance fee at universities, a amount of time; with a monthly support from the state; subject–verb agreement: everybody who want to study). Mistakes in spelling occur, but do not usually hinder communication (except/expect; wether; realle; countrys). Lexical inaccuracies sometimes impede communication (e.g. those, who are not completely interested in a study; a pro going with …; positive sides going with free education). Punctuation problems in complex sentence forms, especially in relative clauses, are frequent, thus the candidate meets only some of the expected standard punctuation conventions. For all these reasons, the text requires effort on the part of the reader.

 

 

 


Essay S-033-ES15

Click here to find the task. Click here to find the performance. Click on the arrows next to the headings to reveal or hide the corresponding benchmarks or justifications.

 Benchmarks

Task type
Performance
TA
OL
LSR
LSA
Essay S-033-ES15 6 6 6 6
 Task Achievement (TA)

The requirements of set task type are only partially observed (style and tone are casual; inappropriate personalized language throughout; text lacks a clear thesis statement, no conclusion to round off the piece). The title is simple but meaningful and adequately worded (suitable for an essay, conveys a clear opinion). All content points are addressed. CPs 1 is reasonably well developed, CPs 2 and 3 less so, as they repeat the ideas used (i.e. learning for experience). Supporting details are generally provided. CP 1 provides a detailed narrative passage analyzing a risk taken. CP 2 argues that risks need to be taken to explore personal boundaries, learn from mistakes and explore new things. However, these ideas are repeated in CP3. The set word length is observed (361 W).

 Organisation and Layout (OL)

The text has a satisfactory overall structure at the text level. The introduction and three content points are clearly recognizable, but a concluding paragraph is missing. The text generally follows paragraphing conventions, in the sense that paragraphs are introduced by topic sentences followed by one or more main points and supporting details. The candidate develops points largely systematically (on paragraph level, thoughts are developed in a way that they can generally be followed). Some relationships between ideas are marked, other ideas, however, are not logically connected (e.g. … we decided to go to a funpark, in a funpark are lots of jumps and stuff; Once we have risked something we know if we are good enough for that or we don’t make it and fail in some way). The writer uses a limited number of linking devices (e.g. however, first of all, after a while, so).

 Lexical and Structural Range (LSR)

The candidate expresses her/himself clearly, although there are some signs of restriction (e.g. vague expressions like thing(s), stuff, and something, or repetitions like to jump over a jump). She/he uses some variety of structures (present, past, & future tenses; negations). Although she/he uses a range of complex structures/sentence forms, such as the present perfect, gerunds; modals, and passive constructions, conditionals, and relative clauses, the candidate only shows a good range of vocabulary to cope with the set task (e.g. to have a deep impact, boundaries, majority, define, surgery, skilled). Some expressions are repeated frequently, e.g. to take a risk in various forms, jump, learning from mistakes, boundaries. All in all, it can be said that the candidate expresses her/himself appropriately in the set task, and uses a sufficient range of language to express viewpoints and develop arguments as required in the set task.

 Lexical and Structural Accuracy (LSA)

The writer demonstrates good control of frequent patterns and structures (e.g. use of tenses is generally accurate). There are structural mistakes, but they do not cause misunderstanding. The performance shows good control of spelling. Lexical accuracy is reasonably high on the whole; any incorrect word choice does not usually hinder communication (e.g. not learning much for an exam). Accurate use of linking devices, except for However, today I know … . Only some of the expected punctuation conventions are met (faulty or missing commas, missing question mark). All in all, a reader seldom has to stop to re-read, even though there are some passages that require effort on the part of the reader (e.g. they don’t it again; Wheter it is a physical, such as…; We need to know where our boundaries and to be able to …).

 

 

 


Email S-46-EM16

Click here to find the task. Click here to find the performance. Click on the arrows next to the headings to reveal or hide the corresponding benchmarks or justifications.

 Benchmarks

Prüfungsformat
Performanz
TA
OL
LSR
LSA
Email S-46-EM16 6 6 5 5
 Task Achievement (TA)

The task type requirements are mainly observed. Most elements of an e-mail are there, and the style can generally be described as formal. The subject line is appropriate. The salutation (Dear company), however, is inadequately worded, and the closing is minimal and abrupt. All content points are addressed. CPs 1 and 2 are reasonably well developed, but CP 3 fails to make clear suggestions. Supporting details/examples are relevant in CP1 and CP 2. The writer highlights the personal significance of events and ideas (… I really like your website …; … in my opinion this is a bad service …). At 233 words, the set word length is observed.

 Organisation and Layout (OL)

The text has a satisfactory overall structure at the text level. The writer generally follows paragraphing conventions. There is a meaningful introductory sentence signalling the intended message in paragraphs 1 and 2, followed by relevant information, (e.g. CP 1: reasons for liking the company – big offer of products, free delivery. CP2: complaint – implicit mentioning of long delivery time, hotline unavailable). Points are developed largely systematically, with the exception of CP 2 (e.g. In this paragraph I am going to complain, because … / The problem, why I am complaining is). Some relationships between ideas are marked by a variety of linking devices, (e.g. demonstrative pronouns, moreover, when, especially, but, so, and). Visually, the text is clearly an e-mail and thus follows the standard layout for the required task type.

 Lexical and Structural Range (LSR)

There is some variety of structures (present, past, and future tenses, questions) as well as some complex structures and sentence forms, (e.g. the going-to future, conditionals), and the candidate expresses her/himself appropriately in the set task. However, the candidate’s lexical range is limited, relying on vocabulary of a lower CEFR level. The candidate is occasionally unable to express her/himself clearly, she/he has problems expressing even simple ideas (e.g. I like your website with the whole promises; my question is if I will become the things). Some lexical limitations cause repetitions (e. g when I buy something than I buy it), and there is some evidence of prompt lifting (e.g. I have ordered …; Especially the free delivery for orders over € 50 is …). The performance shows a limited range of language to express viewpoints (e.g. I’m going to complain … - the problem, why I am complaining is …).

 Lexical and Structural Accuracy (LSA)

Although the performance shows good control of spelling, and many structural mistakes do not cause misunderstanding, there is limited control of frequent patterns and structures (e.g. in the internet; I have ordered these things one week ago; if I would work at this company; and if there is really a hotline). Lexical inaccuracies appear frequently and sometimes impede communication (e.g. than I buy, in the internet, the big offer of the products, if I will become the things). The candidate meets only some of the expected standard punctuation conventions. Commas are frequently missing in more complex sentence forms, sometimes making the intended message hard to understand (e.g. So now my question is if I will become the things I have ordered when this will be and if there is really …). All in all, the text does require effort on the part of the reader.

 

 

 


Email S-42-EM16

Click here to find the task. Click here to find the performance. Click on the arrows next to the headings to reveal or hide the corresponding benchmarks or justifications.

 Benchmarks

Prüfungsformat
Performanz
TA
OL
LSR
LSA
Email S-42-EM16 7 8 6 6
 Task Achievement (TA)

The task type requirements are almost fully observed, although some passages use informal language (e.g. …and I hope you will keep it up like that; … some things of your new summer collection like the amazing new shirts …). The salutation and the closing are appropriate. All content points are addressed, but CPs 2 and 3 are not fully developed. Relevant supporting details/examples are generally provided, but there is some irrelevant information (e.g. Then three days later, my mom told me that …; … after opening the package I soon realized that …). The writer also highlights the personal significance of events and ideas (… I appreciate your services …; … I hope you will understand my problem …). At 260 words, set word length is observed.

 Organisation and Layout (OL)

The performance has a clear overall structure at the text level. The writer shows good use of paragraphing. Each paragraph has a meaningful introductory sentence signalling the intended message, followed by relevant information (e.g. CP 1: reasons for liking the company – variety of clothes & special offers; CP2: what went wrong – faulty package; CP 3: suggestion – send the package back without delivery costs & then you change the package). Points are developed largely systematically. Most relationships between ideas are marked by a variety of linking devices (e.g. even though, first of all, last but not least, however, then, now the point is).

 Lexical and Structural Range (LSR)

The candidate expresses her/himself clearly, although with some signs of restriction (e.g. a very remarkable thing, I ordered some things). There is some variety of structures (present, past, & future tenses,; comparisons, questions) as well as a range of complex structures, like the present perfect ( I have been one of the most loyal custermors; … which you have offered recently), gerunds (e.g. after opening); modals (e.g. I have to repeat; suggetions that may help you). There are some complex sentence forms (e.g. relative clauses, infinitive constructions). The candidate uses a sufficient range of language to express his viewpoints, with some words and lexical chunks sticking out as appropriate in the context of a formal e-mail, (e.g. loyal custermors; I appreciate your services, concerning my last order, I have come up with a few suggestions, to receive my package, without delivery costs, etc.. The performance shows  a good range of vocabulary to cope with the set task. The candidate is not always successful in varying formulation to avoid frequent repetition, e. g the frequent use of the word package (5 times).

 Lexical and Structural Accuracy (LSA)

Although there are errors in frequent patterns and structures (e.g. the completely difference, finding a sollutions), the performance still shows good control of frequent patterns and structures. Other structural errors ( e.g. reported speech: … my mom told me that my package from you arrived), do not cause misunderstanding. Spelling mistakes occur (e.g. custermors, espeacially, sollutions), but they do not hinder communication. Lexical accuracy is reasonably high. There are some errors, but they do not usually hinder communication (e.g. the special offers made me feel pleasant, you did a mistake, your faithfully).  The linking devices in the text are used accurately, and most of the expected punctuation conventions are met. All in all, a reader does not have to stop to re-read.

 

 

 


Blog U-018-BL15

Click here to find the task. Click here to find the performance. Click on the arrows next to the headings to reveal or hide the corresponding benchmarks or justifications.

 Benchmarks

Prüfungsformat
Performanz
TA
OL
LSR
LSA
Blog U-018-BL15 9 10 10 10
 Task Achievement (TA)

The requirements of the set task type are completely observed. The performance reads like a blog in terms of both style and tone. It addresses the reader (at least in your city; why don’t you try; do your lungs a favour) and includes a user name as well as an e-mail address. All content points are addressed and fully developed. The candidate gives relevant supporting details for most of the CPs, as well as good reasons in support of her/his ideas (e.g.: your daily carbodioxide intake definitely outweighs any advantages …), and he/she also proposes solutions to the problem (e.g.: reduce the traffic). At 335 words, the performance fails by a considerable margin to achieve the 250 words set by the task.

 Organisation and Layout (OL)

The performance has a very clear overall structure at the text level. The candidate demonstrates highly effective use of paragraphing (introductory sentences establish text level cohesion across paragraphs: My personal experience; so to be honest) and develops points in a very clear and systematic way. Also, the writer marks relationships between ideas in a very clear way (e.g. support the cause of the environmentalists; the benefits of living in a small village; switch to public transport) and she/he uses a wide variety of linking devices (e.g. but; after all; rather than; so since; for instance; in any case; though; quite; of course). Also, she/he follows the standard layout for a blog throughout (visual).

 Lexical and Structural Range (LSR)

The candidate expresses him/herself very clearly without any sign of restriction, and uses a very good variety of structures (quite frankly; make us believe; more effectively; used to riding my bike; totally insignificant; nobody needs to go; would like to make us believe; rather than; since). She/he uses a range of complex sentence forms (passives: are affected; could be taken; aren't built; gerunds: by doing so; closing down; modals: don’t have to; needs to; conditionals: would strongly recommend; would be much simpler; would perhaps be surprised; would improve; should be) as well as a very wide range of vocabulary for the set task (insignificant; environmentalist; [carbodioxide] intake; outweighs any advantages; modification; switch to public transport; tremendously; far-fetched; measures to be taken; recreation; a mere means of transport; you gain nothing by; support the cause of; closing it down for; do your lungs a favour). The writer varies formulation to avoid repetition (is quite different; if not the opposite; do your lungs a favour and switch). She/he also expresses her/himself confidently, clearly and politely, using a register appropriate for the set task. All in all, the performance shows signs of a very good range of language to give clear descriptions / express viewpoints / develop arguments as required in the set task.

 Lexical and Structural Accuracy (LSA)

The performance is marked by very good structural control, and there are hardly any slips or errors (go to downtown). Furthermore, the candidate shows excellent control of spelling, and her/his lexical accuracy is very high, with hardly any incorrect word choice. Also, the text meets all the standard punctuation conventions, and no re-reading is necessary.

 

 

 


Report R-066-RE14

Click here to find the task. Click here to find the performance. Click on the arrows next to the headings to reveal or hide the corresponding benchmarks or justifications.

 Benchmarks

Prüfungsformat
Performanz
TA
OL
LSR
LSA
Report R-066-RE14 5 5 4 4
 Task Achievement (TA)

The requirements of the set task type are only partially observed. There is a topic stated, but also an additional title (Use of sponsorship money, lifted from the prompt) which is inappropriate in a report. In addition, the writer often uses personalized language (we; our; I; my) and a number of contractions (I’m graduating, I’m writing, there’s not much to see, It’s a pleasure), which are also inappropriate in a report. The subject line (Sponsorship) and the section headings (e.g The benefits; Next year) are simplistic, general, and not adequately worded. The introduction and the conclusion are not formulated in an appropriate style. Although all content points are addressed, not all of them are fully developed, and there is considerable irrelevant information (especially the long passage in CP 2, in which the writer thanks the sponsor, or CP 3, the decoration in the biology classes). At about 370 words the set word length is clearly not observed.

 Organisation and Layout (OL)

The performance has a satisfactory overall structure at the text level, as the introduction, the three content points, and the conclusion are clearly set off in recognizable paragraphs. However, the text does not generally follow paragraphing conventions, as topic sentences are not effective, often being mixed up with the following main point (e.g. CP 3 A good thing is for which we could spend the money next year is maybe for a bigger school – buffet). When addressing CP2 the candidate states that “In Fact, there are many benefits.”, and continues with “We are really thankful for the money which you are sponsoring us and for the chances and opportunities which you make us possible, which I already mentioned.”, neither of which is a meaningful topic sentence referring to the heading of “The benefits”. Dealing with CP 3 the writer suggests a “bigger school-buffet”, but continues saying “It would be way better, if there would be more healthy-food selled”, which leaves the reader confused as to what the main idea is – size or health issues. This is evidence that the writer finds it difficult to develop points largely systematically, and that he/she links only shorter, simple elements into a connected linear sequence. The performance shows a limited number of linking devices used (also, furthermore, another, because; and). Visually, he/she follows the standard layout for the required task type only some of the time. There are frequent one-sentence units that end in mid-line and are thus suggestive of a paragraph, but they are not set off from each other by an empty line.

 Lexical and Structural Range (LSR)

The candidate is occasionally unable to express him/herself clearly due to lexical and grammatical restrictions. There is some variety of structures (adverbs: nearly; really; eventually; passives: were damaged; modals: could; would; relative clauses: which would be nice; going-to future). However, the candidate only occasionally uses complex sentence forms (which could be nice; by considering), and the performance shows a limited range of vocabulary to cope with the set task, resulting in frequent repetition (e.g. a good thing / a big thing / another thing; big opportunity / big benefit; really necessary / really hard to …). Stylistically, the candidate sometimes fails to express him/herself properly in the set task (e.g It would be way better; Eventually for a new “decoration” in the biology classes).

 Lexical and Structural Accuracy (LSA)

The candidate shows limited control of frequent patterns and structures (tenses: spend; selled; prepositions: send for; articles: books for school library; present/past: are lost/got lost; get sponsored from you). Errors occur (we used to spend; I attend to go; healthy food selled) and structural mistakes sometimes cause misunderstanding (which you make us possible; if there would be; happy about the receiving; nearly spent 5000 €). There is noticeable lexical and structural influence from other languages (eventually also for a new decoration; get sponsored from you; a good equipment; make us possible; the last 1000 €; books fell apart). Also, the spelling is frequently inaccurate (considring; in Fact; equipment; oldr; its; Im). All in all, the text requires effort on the part of the reader, particularly in the introduction and in the conclusion.

 

blog counter widget