Help learners recognise quality with contrasting examples

Give learners two short responses to the same task and ask them to find evidence against one assessment criterion. Discuss which response meets it more convincingly, then improve a third example before drafting independently. The aim is to recognise what makes reasoning convincing, not to memorise a model answer or guess a grade.

By the EduMark team

Cambridge’s assessment guidance recommends discussing criteria through examples showing different approaches or stronger and weaker work. McGill’s guidance on exemplars similarly emphasises discussion, annotation and practising judgement. The lesson below adapts those principles using entirely fictional material.

1. Choose one criterion and a small, shared task

Start with a criterion that learners will need in their assessment. For this activity, use this fictional criterion:

Justify a supplier recommendation using relevant cost and delivery evidence.

Explain that justify means showing why the evidence supports the choice, rather than simply stating a preference. Use your actual assessment wording when adapting the activity; this example is not an awarding body’s criterion.

The fictional task is to recommend a supplier for 100 identical training packs. The budget is £600, including delivery, and the packs must arrive within eight working days. Birch quotes £480 with delivery in ten working days. Cedar quotes £560 with delivery in six working days. Both quotes cover the complete order.

Before showing the examples, give learners a minute to note their initial choice and one reason. Then display the excerpts below. When preparing a handout, leave out the annotation row until after discussion.

2. Compare the same facts used differently

Fictional supplier recommendations: excerpts and educator annotations

Example A	Example B
Birch costs £480 and delivers in ten working days. Cedar costs £560 and delivers in six working days. The budget is £600 and the deadline is eight working days. I recommend Cedar. These are the prices and delivery times provided by the two suppliers.	I recommend Cedar. Its £560 quote is £80 more than Birch’s, but remains within the £600 budget. Cedar’s six-working-day delivery also fits the eight-working-day deadline, whereas Birch’s ten-working-day delivery does not. For this order, meeting the deadline justifies paying the additional £80.
Annotation: The facts are accurate and a choice is stated. However, the response leaves the reader to explain how the prices and delivery times support that choice.	Annotation: The response connects evidence to both requirements and explains the trade-off: the higher price is acceptable because it remains affordable and meets the deadline.

Ask learners to work individually first, then compare with a partner:

Underline the factual evidence in each response.
Identify any sentence explaining why a fact matters to the recommendation.
Choose the response that meets the criterion more convincingly and point to the words supporting that judgement.

Challenge vague explanations such as “B sounds more professional”. Ask: “Where does it connect the evidence to the decision?” Reveal your annotations afterwards and discuss disagreements.

Keep the judgement narrow. B demonstrates this criterion more convincingly; that does not establish a grade for a complete assignment. Its delivery statement also relies on the fictional quote, not independent evidence that delivery will happen.

3. Improve a third response without copying B

Give learners this new fictional excerpt, using the same task information:

Choose Cedar because faster delivery is always better.

Ask them to replace it with two or three sentences. Their revision should:

Explain why Cedar’s delivery time matters for this particular order.
Address the additional cost and the available budget.
Remove the unsupported claim that faster delivery is always better.

Do not supply a completed rewrite immediately. Ask partners to identify the evidence and reasoning in each revision. Accept different wording and sentence structures where the justification is sound.

4. Reuse a criterion–evidence–reasoning table

Use this table for another example, the revised third response or learners’ own drafts. The first row illustrates the process; replace it when adapting the activity.

A reusable record of a criterion-based judgement

Criterion	Evidence: quotation or location	Reasoning: why does it meet the criterion?
Justify a supplier recommendation using cost and delivery evidence.	Example B compares the £80 price difference and both delivery times.	It explains why paying more is acceptable within the budget to meet the deadline.
Copy the relevant criterion here.	Identify the exact sentence, calculation, action or section.	Explain the connection. If it is missing, record what needs explaining.

5. Transfer the judgement to independent work

For the assessed task, change the context or evidence so learners must make their own decision. Explain explicitly that the examples illustrate reasoning, not a required writing formula. McGill’s exemplar guidance highlights the importance of clarifying this purpose to discourage copying.

Once learners have a draft, ask them to locate one passage where they connect evidence to a conclusion. If they can only find facts, their next action is to explain why those facts matter.

Carry that same criterion-based language into educator feedback. EduMark Studio brings submitted work, criteria and feedback together for educator review. The comparison activity itself can run on paper or in a shared document; it does not depend on a dedicated exemplar-comparison feature.