Module Code ESLM04
Module Title Written Assignment
Due Date See Canvas
Maximum 2500
words
Task Instructions: You must do BOTH parts of the task below:
How you divide the 2500 word limit is your choice.
Part 1
Practical analysis of a range of learner errors
Select a representative sample of a learner’s writing in English at
around A2-B1 level. You need at least 300-500 words of text.
Choose wisely as you need quite a lot of errors/mistakes to work
with.
Identify and categorise the errors/mistakes (e.g., tense, aspect,
modality, word order, morphology, lexical choice, collocation, or
pragmatic function).
Critically evaluate the possible underlying causes of these
errors/mistakes using relevant theories of second language
acquisition (e.g. do you think the error is due to L1 influence, task
type, context, or something else? Why?).
o This requires reference to the literature/text books.
Advice
We advise you not to deal with the issues in text sequence, but to
group them and deal with each type in turn.
Your submission may not end up being an “essay”: it may be a
series of short answers. This is rather up to you to decide.
Part 2
Discussion and Mitigation
Discuss pedagogical strategies to help the student improve in
TWO of the following areas, based on the errors/mistakes they
made.
o This requires reference to the literature/text books.
o Grammar / constructions
o Tense, aspect and modality
o Morphology
o Appropriateness / style
o Meaning
You should not provide just generic advice, but should directly
relate to the errors/mistakes they made themselves.
Include an example or two of remedial tasks that would help the
student improve.
Additional Guidance
ONLY upload Word DocX files
ONLY use this file naming:
o ESLM04 A2 Essay 2025_26_YOUR_STUDENT_NUMBER
You must not exceed the maximum word count by more than 10%
(not including references). If you do exceed this, you will be
penalised by 10 marks.,
You must refer to previous literature, course books and research.
You must cite each source in APA7 format.
o Use page numbers for all direct quotes and as much
as possible for paraphrases.
You must include a full reference list of all and only the work you
cite, also in APA7 format as described here.
You must work alone on this paper, although you may consult
teachers, colleagues and online/AI for help.
o However, you must not include any words, phrases,
sentences or paragraphs that were not directly
written by you unless they are direct quotes.
Please refer to the Marjon student regulations for information on
penalties for academic malpractice, plagiarism, collusion and
cheating.
Marking
Work is marked on a 0358-grading scale, e.g., 60, 63, 65, 68, 70
etc.
A pass mark is 50. Failing work is subject to resit regulations.
o On this programme you do not have to pass every element
of assessment. You need to achieve 50% for the module as a
whole.
There are two tables that contain information on marking.
o This assignment will receive a global mark according to the
weighted criteria in table 1.
o Marks are not given for each of the criteria. The weights are
an indication of what criteria inform the global grade for the
work.
o The grade descriptor in table 2 outlines your overall
achievement for each criteria mapped to the grade.
This is not a scientific marking system. It is
“impressionistic”, with tables 1 and 2 being a guideline
rubric, not a strict numerical grading system.
Table 1: Marking Criteria (based on learning outcomes)
You will be marked on how well you demonstrate the following:
Knowledge & understanding: 20 %
accurate descriptions of nonstandard English language use
(PLO 4);
Intellectual skills: 20 %
critical evaluation of how social context (e.g. a learner’s
background and L1) and task type affect interlanguage (MLO
2).
Practical skills: 40 %
evaluation of learner errors and mistakes (PLO 10 / MLO 1);
Transferable / key skills: 20 %
applying professional practices to help learners improve
their English (PLO 13)
Table 2 : Grade descriptor for LEVEL 7 (M)
Pass with Distinction outstanding work which is thought
90-100% provoking, presenting challenging
Work which:- evidence based insights and proposals
work which is of publishable quality
Pass with Distinction contributes to the knowledge base of the
80-89% discipline
Work which:- effectively challenges theoretical
frameworks
displays methodological rigour
demonstrates qualities consistent with
publishable material
Pass with Distinction demonstrates confident, detailed and
70-79% informed knowledge of the discipline
Work which:- demonstrates qualities of self critical,
independent learning
displays a confident / competent grasp of
complex issues
displays evidence of originality and
innovation
Pass with Merit demonstrates secure and relevant
60-69% knowledge base
Work which:- is analytical in style and critical in
interpretation
demonstrates a fluent style and use of
appropriate language
Pass demonstrates a competent understanding
50-59% of the discipline
Work which:- reveals knowledge and understanding of
key issues
addresses issues within a structured
framework
demonstrates analytical and critical
acumen
is well organized and presented
Condonable Fail displays relevant knowledge of the
40-49 discipline
Work which:- reveals some evidence of a systematic,
coherent and analytical engagement with
the discipline
is generally competent but may be
conceptually weak
contains irrelevant materials
Fail demonstrates limited understanding of the
30-39% discipline
Work which:- reveals weaknesses / flaws in argument
uses an insufficient range of sources
has a poor style / structure
is partially incomplete
Fail displays insufficient engagement with or
20-29% lack of understanding of the discipline
Work which:- shows limitations in the ability to formulate
/ sustain a clear argument
does not meet the expectations of the task
set
Fail has serious errors and / or major omissions
10-19% is poorly communicated / presented
Work which:- is incomplete / does not focus on the task
set
Fail unacceptable work which lacks evidence of
2-9% understanding the discipline
Work which:- includes inappropriate / irrelevant
information
lacks any evidence of an appropriate
reading base
marginal or no engagement with the task
Fail 1% Malpractice
Fail 0% Non-submission
AI use
The use of Generative AI (GenAI) apps (e.g. ChatGPT, Google Gemini)
presents opportunities for studying, but comes with significant risks
for reflective writing. Submission of AI-generated content as your own
personal reflection is not acceptable and fundamentally undermines the
purpose of this assessment.
Acceptable Use of Generative AI
Use of writing tools supported by the University: e.g.
Grammarly or Studiosity for help with spelling and grammar
issues.
Use of Gen AI to clarify concepts: e.g., asking for an
explanation of the Gibbs reflective cycle or 'What, So What, Now
What' model.
Use it to assess knowledge: asking for review questions on
professional ethics or reflective practice to test your
understanding.
Use AI to better understand the HCPC standards if you are
struggling with the professional language.
Inappropriate Use of Generative AI
Using AI to generate any part of your reflections,
descriptions, or analyses. This work must be authentically
yours.
Copy and pasting any analysis or examples and asking AI
to populate it with content for your assignment.
Using AI to paraphrase or rewrite your own words to avoid
detection - this alters your unique voice and authenticity.
Submitting any AI-generated text as your own personal
work.
If in doubt...
Talk to your tutors about your intended use of GenAI. This is
especially important for analytic and reflective work.
Remember the purpose of this assessment is to
develop your analytic and reflective skills for professional practice.
AI cannot have your personal experiences or genuine insights.
When using AI for clarification, always go back to the
original source to verify the information.