SIJIL PELAJARAN MALAYSIA
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Instructions for Writing Examiners
To be used with revised examination
© ES 2021
1
For examiner use only
Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................3
A note about terminology ............................................................................................3
Security and confidentiality .........................................................................................3
The ES Examiner Management System.........................................................................4
Writing examiner responsibilities ....................................................................................5
SPM assessment criteria ...............................................................................................6
SPM and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages ................6
CEFR coverage of writing assessment scales across ES exams ................................7
The separation of assessment focus ..........................................................................8
Content.......................................................................................................................8
Communicative achievement ......................................................................................9
Organisation .............................................................................................................10
Language .................................................................................................................10
Additional guidance for writing examiners .................................................................11
The SPM Writing test ...................................................................................................13
The format of SPM Writing .......................................................................................13
The Part 1 email task................................................................................................14
The Part 2 essay task ...............................................................................................16
The Part 3 extended writing task ..............................................................................17
SPM Writing Part 1 assessment scale .........................................................................19
SPM Writing Part 2 assessment scale .........................................................................21
SPM Writing Part 3 assessment scale .........................................................................23
Notes ...........................................................................................................................25
© ES 2021
2
For examiner use only
Introduction
This manual is to be used by all Writing Examiners (WEs) who are involved in the delivery
and assessment of the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) English Language Writing exam.
Please note that there are separate documents you will also need to refer to in training and
delivery of assessments. Where relevant, these are noted in this booklet.
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 often engaged as an examiner, from this point onwards the term
used in this booklet will be ‘examiner’ but this refers to any ‘teacher-examiners’ who assess
SPM Writing. The shorthand for Writing Examiners is ‘WE’, ‘WEs’ or ‘examiners’ throughout.
Where the term ‘marker(s)’ is used, this refers to marking of objective (i.e. Reading and Use
of English and Listening) examinations.
Security and confidentiality
All test materials including marker or examiner training materials, assessment criteria and
mark schemes are strictly confidential. Examiners are responsible for the security of
materials at all times that the materials are in their possession.
Live test materials (including mark schemes and assessment scales) must not be
reproduced or used for teaching or test practice. Once all candidates within a school have
been tested, all Reading & Use of English, Writing and Listening question papers and mark
schemes, and all Speaking Test packs, should be collected and returned following guidance
from ES.
Examiners must not discuss the test materials or assessment criteria with anyone other than
a fellow ES Examiner. During and after live marking, markers and examiners must not,
under any circumstances, divulge information about the performance of candidates or the
marks awarded unless notified that they are allowed to do so by ES.
© ES 2021
3
For examiner use only
The ES Examiner Management System
The 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.
ES Examiner
Management
Team
Chief Examiner
Co-chief
Examiners
Team Leaders
Examiners
Training
All 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 criteria
consistently and appropriately.
Examiners have a responsibility to ensure that they:
o
o
o
o
© ES 2021
are familiar with the test format and materials
minimize security risks (e.g. treating materials as strictly confidential)
examine effectively (i.e. spending neither too long nor to little time on scripts)
interpret and applying the assessment criteria
4
For examiner use only
o
o
complete mark sheets (where applicable)
are ready to perform double marking etc.
Performance feedback and monitoring
Feedback is provided to examiners following consideration of various aspects of their
performance.
The most significant of several sources of feedback information is monitoring of WEs during
live marking sessions by Chief Examiner/Co-chief Examiners/Team Leaders/ES. WEs must
supply examples of marked scripts if requested by their Chief Examiner/Co-chief
Examiners/Team Leaders/ES, as a means of monitoring application of assessment criteria in
line with agreed standards and training.
Examiners must respond positively to guidance given in the context of training and/or
monitoring.
Additional performance feedback may stem from random or targeted sampling of an
examiner’s assessment, based on samples of marking they have carried out with
candidates. This may be requested by ES as part of routine quality assurance checks at any
time in the marking period.
Writing examiner responsibilities
Writing Examiners must:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
maintain the security and confidentiality of the Writing test and assessment criteria
ensure that all candidates are treated fairly and in accordance with the instructions in
this booklet
be familiar with all relevant sections of this booklet
be familiar with the appropriate test procedure
be familiar with the appropriate test materials and use them as instructed
be familiar with the appropriate assessment criteria and apply them as instructed
familiarise themselves with all relevant updates and revisions as appropriate
be professional in their working practices and communications with fellow examiners.
Examiners should be supportive and flexible, as appropriate.
minimise security risks by:
− ensuring that no test materials are taken out of their possession
− maintaining the confidentiality of the examination materials throughout the
examining period and thereafter.
© ES 2021
5
For examiner use only
SPM assessment criteria
The following section provides information and guidance on the assessment criteria for SPM
Writing.
SPM and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
All of ES’ English language proficiency examinations are now aligned with the levels
described by the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference). SPM Writing
assessment criteria (and tasks) have been developed in accordance with the CEFR
descriptors and the features of performance which they ascribe to different proficiency
levels.
There are seven main levels: Pre-A1, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2. Complimenting this are
the so-called ‘plus’ levels (e.g. A2+, B1+) which describe performance at the upper end of a
given level. Language ability at each level is described using a series of CAN DO
statements.
A1 (Breakthrough) indicates a ‘basic ability to communicate and exchange information in a
simple way’, for example: CAN ask simple questions about a menu and understand simple
answers.
C2 (Mastery) indicates ‘the capacity to deal with material which is academic or cognitively
demanding, and to use language to good effect at a level of performance which may in
certain respects be more advanced than that of an average native speaker’, for example:
CAN scan texts for relevant information, and grasp main topic of text, reading almost as
quickly as a native speaker.
The CEFR levels are broadly described as follows:
A1
Basic User
Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most
immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local
geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a
simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can
describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and
matters in areas of immediate need.
A2
B1
Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed
at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others
and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives,
people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the
other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.
Independent
User
Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics,
including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a
degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers
quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide
range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and
disadvantages of various options.
B2
C1
C2
© ES 2021
Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly
encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise
whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple
connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe
experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and
explanations for opinions and plans.
Proficient
User
Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit
meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious
searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social,
academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text
on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and
cohesive devices.
Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise
information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and
accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very
fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex
situations.
6
For examiner use only
CEFR coverage of writing assessment scales across ES exams
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.
UPSR Part 2
UPSR Part 3
PT3 Part 1
PT3 Part 2
SPM Part 1
SPM Part 2
SPM Part 3
C2
C1
Band 5
B2
Band 5
B1
Band 5
Band 3
Band 1
Band 5
Band 5
Band 3
Band 5
Band 3
Band 1
Band 3
Band 1
A2
Band 5
Band 3
Band 3
A1
Band 3
Band 1
Band 1
Pre A1
Band 1
Band 1
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.
Examiners must ensure they are using the correct assessment scale every time they mark.
The Part 1 scale is focused on the A2 CEFR level. The Part 2 scale is focused on the B1
CEFR level. Part 3 scale is focused on the B2 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.
Task 1
C1
B2
B1
A2
A1
Below
Task 2
Task 3
Cont
Comm
Org
Lang
Cont
Comm
Org
Lang
Cont
Comm
Org
Lang
11
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
8
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
7
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
6
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
5
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
As shown above, task 1 in SPM Writing will cover the A2 range, task 2 the B1 range and the
final task the B2 range.
© ES 2021
7
For examiner use only
The tasks are designed specifically to elicit responses at these levels (for example, the short
communicative message in task 1 will necessarily be limited in its scope to show language
use above a B1 level and similarly the report, article, review or story in task 3 will demand at
minimum a B1 level of language proficiency in order to be partially achieved).
Underpinning this scale is an ethos of allowing both weaker and stronger candidates to have
something to show for their efforts.
The separation of assessment focus
In order to ensure fair assessment, WEs are trained to assess all scripts according to set
criteria. These criteria can be divided between one which focuses on task achievement
(Content) and those which focus purely on linguistic skills.
Linguistic
competence
Task completion
Communicative
Achievement
Content
Organisation
Language
Figure 1 Criteria used by Writing Examiners
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.
The important thing to note in relation to content is that the scale descriptors do not alter
from task to task, from test part to test part. Hence, content must be interpreted every time in
the context of the task. A score of 5 requires that ‘all content is relevant to the task’ and that
the ‘target reader is fully informed’. In the context of Part 1’s email this would translate to the
candidate having answered any questions posed by the input email (i.e. it is relevant and
informative). Similarly, in Part 2’s essay, the candidate is asked to write about three main
aspects on a topic and to provide a rationale for their point(s) of view – if a candidate fails to
provide reasons, for example, they would perhaps score 4 or 3 because their response
contains ‘minor omissions’.
Low scores for content will often be the result of misinterpretation of task requirements. For
example, if a candidate misinterprets a prompt as ‘ask to borrow Sam’s book’ when it is
actually ‘offer to lend Sam a book’ the response they give in reply will be irrelevant and only
minimally inform the target reader (i.e. Sam). Misinterpretation of task requirements may be
global or it may relate to a specific aspect of the task – examiners need to consider these
factors when assessing for content and give credit for relevance and informing the target
reader where this occurs.
© ES 2021
8
For examiner use only
Examiners should not assume there is a one-to-one relationship between requirements
within a task and the content scale. As the tasks often include 3-4 main points to cover,
assessment of content is based much more on the cumulative effect of the response on the
target reader.
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.
In using this sub-scale to evaluate texts, some questions to ask are:
•
•
•
•
•
Are the conventions of the communicative task followed?
Does the response hold the target reader’s attention?
Does it do this effectively, flexibly, or convincingly?
How simple, straightforward, or complex are the ideas being communicated?
Were all communicative purposes achieved?
By asking these questions and consulting the descriptors, the correct mark for
Communicative Achievement should be evident.
“Conventions of the communicative task” covers such things as genre, format, register,
and function, and is the primary focus of this sub-scale. For example, a personal letter
should not be written as a formal report, should be laid out accordingly, and use the right
tone for the communicative purpose. Likewise, sentences that start with “But” will be more or
less appropriate depending on the genre being produced.
Some tasks may allow different interpretations (e.g. whether a letter should be more or less
formal, audience for a piece of writing).When not explicitly specified in the task, give
candidates the benefit of the doubt, or consult your Team Leader.
Note the descriptors’ use of the words “Produces” (A2 descriptor), “Uses” (most other
descriptors). A key difference between the A2 (“Produces text that…”) and B1 (“Uses the
conventions of the communicative task…”) descriptors is awareness of genre.
“Holding the target reader’s attention” is used in the positive sense and refers to the
quality of a text that allows a reader to derive meaning and not being distracted. It does not
refer to texts that force a reader to read closely because they are difficult to follow or make
sense of.
A key difference between B1, B2, and C1 is the ability to hold the target reader’s attention in
the latter. A B1 text might not make for smooth reading, perhaps as a result of frequent
errors, (hence, nothing in the descriptor about holding readers’ attention). A B2 text (“hold
the target reader’s attention”) would make for smooth reading, even if errors are present. A
C1 text (“effectively to hold”) would make for smooth reading which could be the result of an
absence or paucity of errors.
“All communicative purposes” refers to all the communicative requirements as set out in
the task, e.g. make a complaint, suggest an alternative.
Simple ideas typically require only one or a few words to communicate (e.g. “I like pop
music.” “Let’s go next week.”).
“Straightforward” and “complex” ideas can be distinguished by such markers as level of
concreteness/abstractness, how broad or restricted the subject area, and by the complexity
of rhetorical devices necessary to express the idea adequately. For example, suggesting a
course of action may be more straightforward than deciding which of several options is
better and why. The latter may require use of conditionals, hypotheticals, and
© ES 2021
9
For examiner use only
counterfactuals. Note that the same prompt/question may result in one candidate responding
with straightforward ideas and another responding with complex ideas.
How Communicative Achievement and Content differ
Communicative Achievement is different from Content in that the latter focuses only on the
task requirements, whereas Communicative Achievement focuses on the communicative
sociolinguistic requirements of the task. Thus, for example, off topic responses which
nevertheless have the appropriate genre and register as called for by the task may have a
low mark for Content but a higher mark for Communicative Achievement.
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.
In using this sub-scale, ask the following questions in order:
•
•
•
•
In terms of coherence, is the text connected, generally well-organised or wellorganised?
Among linking words, cohesive devices and, which is the highest order device
employed?
Are the devices used appropriately and to generally good effect?
Within the parameters of the task, how much variety is there in the use of these
devices?
Answering these questions in this order and consulting the descriptors should make the
correct Organisation mark evident.
“Linking words” are cohesive devices but are separated here to refer to higher-frequency
vocabulary which provide explicit linkage. They can range from basic high frequency items
(such as “and”, “but”) to basic and phrasal items (such as “because”, “first of all”, “finally”).
“Cohesive devices” refers to more sophisticated linking words and phrases (e.g.
“moreover”, “it may appear”, “as a result”), as well as grammatical devices such as the use
of reference pronouns, substitution (e.g. There are two women in the picture. The one on the
right…), ellipsis (e.g. The first car he owned was a convertible, the second a family car.), etc.
Relationship of “linking words” and “cohesive devices”,. Linking words are simpler than
cohesive devices,. A composition must show evidence of the higher order element in the
descriptor to merit the level. Thus, for a descriptor that says “uses a variety of linking words
and cohesive devices”, the performance must have used cohesive devices, (and linking
words being absent would be acceptable).
Paragraphing is a tool for organisation, among others, and is evaluated under this subscale. The use of other cohesive devices should be taken into account when considering the
appropriateness and sufficiency of paragraphing in a response. Paragraphing is likely
required to fulfil the Organisation descriptors at the higher/CEFR C levels.
Punctuation can be a help or a hindrance to the organisation of a text. If a text is linked with
commas and no full stops, this is not appropriate. However, some short texts may not
necessarily show more than capital letters and full stops.
Language
The focus is on the lexical and grammatical aspects of writing, e.g. range and control of
grammatical structures and accuracy.
In using this sub-scale, focus on the vocabulary and structure descriptors. Identify
type of vocabulary (everyday? less common?) or structure (simple? complex?) used, then
determine the range/variety of these, then determine what proportions of these are used in
© ES 2021
10
For examiner use only
which fashion (some control? good control? full control? generally appropriately?
appropriately?). Use the accuracy/error descriptors only as a tie-breaker as necessary.
“Basic vocabulary” refers to vocabulary such as used for survival purposes, for simple
transactions, and the like.
“Everyday vocabulary” refers to vocabulary that comes up in common situations of a nontechnical nature in the relevant domain.
“Less common lexis” refers to lower frequency items in the relevant domain. These items
often help to express ideas more succinctly and precisely.
Whether a word is “everyday” or “less common” is context dependent. A word that is
“everyday” in one context (e.g. business) may well be “less common” in another context.
Thus, the domain needs to be kept in mind when evaluating a composition.
“Slips” are non-systematic performance errors, whereas “errors” are systematic. The two
are distinguished by considering the overall evidence from the text (e.g. where most other
examples of lexical/grammatical point in composition are accurate, a mistake on that point
would be a slip).
“Impede communication” means getting in the way of meaning. “Meaning can still be
determined” indicates that some effort is required from the reader to determine meaning.
“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.
Additional guidance for writing examiners
▪
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.
▪
When achievement of descriptors vary, (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
© ES 2021
11
For examiner use only
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 over-length 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 under-length 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’.
© ES 2021
12
For examiner use only
The SPM Writing test
This section outlines the design and content of the SPM English Writing test.
The Writing exam is one of four SPM components, each contributing an equal share to
candidates’ overall marks.
Component
Timing
Number of
items/parts
Weighting
CEFR
main
focus
25% of overall
candidate
grade
B1-B2
CEFR
range
short communicative
message (email)
guided writing (essay)
extended writing task (report,
review, article or story)
25% of overall
candidate
grade
B1-B2
CEFR
range
25% of overall
candidate
grade
B1-B2
CEFR
range
•
interview
individual long turn based on
text/verbal prompt
discussion based on mind
map stimulus
further discussion task
•
•
•
3-option multiple-choice
Matching
note completion
25% of overall
candidate
grade
B1-B2
CEFR
range
Task types
•
Reading
and Use of
English
Paper
Code:
1119/1
•
1 hour 30
minutes
40 items
5 test parts
•
•
•
Writing
Paper
Code:
1119/2
1 hour 30
minutes
3 items
3 test parts
13 minutes
(approx.)
3 test parts
Listening
Paper
Code:
1119/4
•
•
•
•
Speaking
Paper
Code:
1119/3
•
40 minutes
(approx.)
30 items
4 test parts
•
3-option multiple choice
(short texts)
4-option multiple choice
cloze
4-option multiple choice
(longer texts)
Gapped text
matching and information
transfer
While the main focus of the Writing test is B1-B2 levels, there is some allowance within the
test design and assessment criteria for levels below or above this range of proficiency (i.e.
the assessment criteria span A1-C1 levels across three separate tasks).
The writing test is intended to cover as wide a range of written genres as feasible within the
practical limits of testing – an email focused on informal contexts, an essay task and an
extended writing task where candidates can choose from three options e.g. report, review or
story.
The format of SPM Writing
The standard Writing test takes 1 hour 30 minutes and consists of three parts which are
designed to elicit a range of writing skills from the candidates.
The first two tasks (email and essay) are obligatory, the third task is chosen by the
candidates from a range of three options (e.g. review, article, report or story). Candidates
must complete all three tasks.
© ES 2021
13
For examiner use only
Part
Task Type
Number of
Items
Task Format
1
Short communicative
message (email)
1
2
Guided writing (essay)
1
A short response
(about 80 words) to
an informal
message.
A longer text (125150 words) based
on a text stimulus.
3
Extended writing task
1
A choice of 3
questions,
candidates choose
one of: an article,
review, report or
story and write
200-250 words.
Intended
CEFR
level(s)
A2
B1
B2
The intended level of challenge in each task increases throughout the test, with the first task
more accessible to lower-proficiency candidates. The third extended writing task is designed
to allow higher-proficiency candidates to show their full range of language skills while still
being accessible to lower-level candidates (e.g. a lower-proficiency candidate can still
attempt task 3 but may not be able to show a degree of controlled, complex language
elicited by the task). This spread of tasks ensures balance and fairness to all candidates, so
that they can show what they are able to do.
The Part 1 email task
This is an obligatory task and all candidates must complete it.
The word length requirement is approximately 80 words.
The task is designed to be accessible to candidates of all proficiency levels as it will typically
require a personal and concrete response on general social and everyday matters. Below is
an example task input:
Figure 2 Example task input from SPM Writing Part 1
As in the example above the scenario is an email from ‘your new friend’, the task sets the
scene – in this case that Amy has just moved to your town and the school holidays have
started. The task then includes certain points (framed as questions) which the candidate
needs to answer (‘where shall we go?’; ‘what can we do there?’; ‘what should we bring?’).
© ES 2021
14
For examiner use only
The input ends with an informal closing, partly to help emphasize the social context of the
message as an informal exchange between friends. Candidates are then given a specific
email template into which to write their reply, as below.
EMAIL
To:
amy@mymail.my
Subject:
Picnic with friends!
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Candidates are asked to ‘write an email to your friend in about 80 words’.
This task is assessed with reference to the Part 1 assessment scale which has A2 as its
midpoint.
C1
B2
B1
A2
A1
Content
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
© ES 2021
Communicative Achievement
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
15
Organisation
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
For examiner use only
Language
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
Pre-A1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Figure 3 SPM Part 1 assessment scale / CEFR links
Given the nature of the task and the focus of the assessment scales, it will not be
uncommon for candidates at near-B2 or above levels to score 5-5-5-5 in this task.
Examiners should bear this in mind, as the task is primarily designed to differentiate
performances at A1-B1 levels.
The Part 2 essay task
This is an obligatory task and all candidates must complete it.
The word length requirement is approximately 120-150 words.
The task is designed to be generally accessible to candidates of most proficiency levels as it
will typically require a response not unlike those candidates experience in their school
context. This task is aimed at a proficiency range of A2-B2 which is aligned to the CEFR
assumptions of ability to write essays and reports at these levels (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Updated CEFR descriptors for written reports and essays (Council of Europe, 2019: 77)
Below is an example task input:
© ES 2021
16
For examiner use only
As in the example above the scenario is that you have been discussing ‘how you spend your
money’ in your class and your teacher has asked you to write an essay. The teacher’s
instruction highlights three main points which candidates need to cover: what they like to
buy; why they buy this item and where they usually buy ‘these things’. They are additionally
required to give reasons for their point of view.
This task is assessed with reference to the Part 2 assessment scale which has B1 as its
midpoint.
C1
B2
B1
A2
A1
Below
Content
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
Communicative Achievement
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
Organisation
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
Language
5
5
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
Figure 5 SPM Part 2 assessment scale / CEFR links
Given the nature of the task and the focus of the assessment scales, it will not be
uncommon for candidates at near-C1 or above levels to score 5-5-5-5 in this task.
Examiners should bear this in mind, as the task is primarily designed to differentiate
performances at A2-B2 levels.
The Part 3 extended writing task
In Part 3 the candidates must complete one of the three tasks presented to them on the
question paper.
The word length requirement is approximately 200-250 words.
Candidates will be given a choice of three tasks from the following: an article, review, report
or story.
Context of writing
As in the previous parts of the SPM English Writing exam, this will be clearly established in
the rubric for each task, below are some examples:
−
−
−
You see this notice on the board outside the school library. Articles wanted!
You recently saw this notice in a magazine. Reviews required!
Your teacher has asked you to write a story for a school magazine.
© ES 2021
17
For examiner use only
In all cases, the rubric will establish both the communicative context and the genre for the
candidates. This is particularly important when considering communicative achievement
which refers to the conventions of the communicative task but also how genre conventions
have a connection to organisational norms.
Examiners also need to consider what the task requirements are (i.e. across the assessed
criteria), for example, in the review task (Figure 6) there are a series of questions to be
answered and an expectation that some form of rationale will be provided. Aside from
content-related concerns, candidates need to show an awareness of the communicative
conventions of a review, how it should be organised and what language is appropriate
and/or effective in such texts.
Figure 6 Example review task
The topic is one which is accessible to all but which can allow stronger candidates to show
what they can do.
This task is assessed with reference to the Part 3 assessment scale which has B2 as its
midpoint.
C1
B2
B1
A2
A1
Below
Content
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Communicative Achievement
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Organisation
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Language
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Figure 7 Part 3 assessment scale / CEFR links
Given the nature of the tasks and the focus of the assessment scales, it will not be
uncommon for candidates at lower levels (e.g. A2-B1) to score poorly in this task. Examiners
should bear this in mind, as the task is primarily designed to differentiate performances at
B1-C1 levels.
© ES 2021
18
For examiner use only
SPM Writing Part 1 assessment scale
SCORE
5
CONTENT
All content is
relevant to the
task.
Target reader is
fully informed.
COMMUNICATIVE
ACHIEVEMENT
ORGANISATION
Produces a text that
communicates
straightforward ideas
using the
conventions of the
communicative task
reasonably
appropriately.
Uses simple
connectors and a
limited number of
cohesive devices
appropriately.
LANGUAGE
Uses basic
vocabulary
appropriately.
Uses simple
grammatical forms
with a good degree
of control.
While errors are
noticeable,
meaning can still
be determined.
4
3
Performance shares features of Scores 3 and 5
Minor
irrelevances
and/or omissions
may be present.
Produces a text that
communicates
simple ideas in
simple ways.
Text is connected
using basic, high
frequency
connectors.
Target reader is
on the whole
informed.
2
1
Uses simple
grammatical forms
with some degree
of control.
Errors may impede
meaning at times.
Performance shares features of Scores 1 and 3
Irrelevances
and/or
misinterpretation
of the task may
be present.
Produces isolated
short units about
simple and concrete
matters, not always
communicating
successfully.
Target reader is
minimally
informed.
0
Uses basic
vocabulary
reasonably.
Content is totally
irrelevant.
Target reader is
not informed.
© ES 2021
Production unlikely
to be connected,
though punctuation
and simple
connectors (e.g.
and) may be used
on occasion.
Produces basic
vocabulary of
isolated words and
phrases.
Produces few
simple grammatical
forms with only
limited control.
Performance below Score 1
19
For examiner use only
© ES 2021
20
For examiner use only
SPM Writing Part 2 assessment scale
SCORE
COMMUNICATIVE
ACHIEVEMENT
CONTENT
All content is
relevant to the task.
Target reader is
fully informed.
Uses the
conventions of the
communicative task
to hold the target
reader’s attention
and communicate
straightforward ideas
appropriately.
ORGANISATION
Text is generally
well-organised and
coherent, using a
variety of cohesive
devices.
5
LANGUAGE
Uses a range of
everyday
vocabulary with
occasional
inappropriate use
of less common
lexis.
Uses a range of
simple and some
complex
grammatical
forms with a good
degree of control.
Errors do not
impede
communication.
4
3
Performance shares features of Scores 3 and 5
Minor irrelevances
and/or omissions
may be present.
Target reader is on
the whole informed.
Produces a text that
communicates
straightforward ideas
using the
conventions of the
communicative task
reasonably
appropriately.
Uses simple
connectors and a
limited number of
cohesive devices
appropriately.
Uses basic
vocabulary
appropriately.
Uses simple
grammatical forms
with a good degree
of control.
While errors are
noticeable,
meaning can still
be determined.
2
1
Performance shares features of Scores 1 and 3
Irrelevances and/or
misinterpretation of
task may be
present.
© ES 2021
Produces a text that
communicates
simple ideas in
simple ways.
21
Text is connected
using basic, high
frequency
connectors.
For examiner use only
Uses basic
vocabulary
reasonably.
Uses simple
grammatical forms
with some degree
Target reader is
minimally informed.
of control.
Errors may
impede meaning
at times.
0
Content is totally
irrelevant.
Target reader is not
informed.
© ES 2021
Performance below Score 1
22
For examiner use only
SPM Writing Part 3 assessment scale
SCORE
CONTENT
All content is
relevant to the
task.
5
Target reader is
fully informed.
COMMUNICATIVE
ACHIEVEMENT
ORGANISATION
LANGUAGE
Uses the conventions
of the communicative
task effectively to
hold the target
reader’s attention and
communicate with
ease, fulfilling all
communicative
purposes.
Text is wellorganised and
coherent, using a
variety of cohesive
devices with
generally good
effect.
Uses a range of
vocabulary,
including less
common lexis,
appropriately.
Uses a range of
simple and complex
grammatical forms
with control and
flexibility.
Occasional errors
and slips may be
present.
4
Performance shares features of Scores 3 and 5
Minor
irrelevances
and/or
omissions may
be present.
3
Uses the conventions
of the communicative
task to hold the
reader’s attention and
communicate
straightforward ideas
appropriately.
Text is generally
well-organised and
coherent, using a
variety of cohesive
devices.
Uses a range of
everyday vocabulary
with occasional
inappropriate use of
less common lexis.
Uses a range of
simple and some
complex
grammatical forms
with a good degree
of control.
Target reader is
on the whole
informed.
Errors do not
impede
communication.
2
© ES 2021
Performance shares features of Scores 1 and 3
23
For examiner use only
1
Irrelevances
and/or
misinterpretation
of task may be
present.
Produces a text that
communicates
straightforward ideas
using the conventions
of the communicative
task reasonably
appropriately.
Uses simple
connectors and a
limited number of
cohesive devices
appropriately.
Target reader is
minimally
informed.
Uses basic
vocabulary
appropriately.
Uses simple
grammatical forms
with a good degree
of control.
While errors are
noticeable, meaning
can still be
determined.
Content is totally
irrelevant.
0
Performance below Score 1
Target reader is
not informed.
© ES 2021
24
For examiner use only
Notes
© ES 2021
25
For examiner use only