How Do Examiners Mark Subject Terminology?
August 24, 2025 |
Subject Terminology
Today we are sneaking behind the scenes of the exam papers to answer a big question: How do examiners actually mark subject terminology?
Because if you are going to put the effort in, you might as well know what is really going on when your paper lands in front of the person with the red pen (or, these days, the person behind their computer screen!).
The Myth vs The Reality
Myth: Examiners hand out marks every time you name a technique.
Reality: Nope. Simply writing “This is a metaphor” will not score you points on its own.
Marks are awarded for:
Sophisticated vs Clear
A lot of students think that you need to learn obscure sounding terminology to reach the highest bands of the mark scheme. This misunderstanding comes from seeing that the top bands say candidates have a 'sophisticated' use of subject terminology and thinking the sophistication comes from the complexity of the term, rather than how you've used the term.
If you identify a metaphor and accurately analyse its effect, then you are well on your way to a good quality 'clear and accurate' use of subject terminology. Then again, if you were to analyse a metaphor and then explore how its effect combines with the first person narrative viewpoint in order to create an effect... now you're being sophisticated.
Sophisticated use of subject terminology comes back to how you use it to analyse. You could:
Don't forget: to hit the top bands, you have to meet the lower bands first. If you are not accurately identifying techniques, analysing their effect and/or saying something relevant to the question, then it does not matter how sophisticated you try to be - you won't reach full marks.
What Examiners Do Not Want
Feature spotting (naming devices with no analysis)
Wrong labels (calling personification a metaphor)
Mismatch (naming one device but analysing something else)
Obscure jargon (throwing in “polysyndeton” just to sound fancy and without truly analysing it)
Because if you are going to put the effort in, you might as well know what is really going on when your paper lands in front of the person with the red pen (or, these days, the person behind their computer screen!).
The Myth vs The Reality
Myth: Examiners hand out marks every time you name a technique.
Reality: Nope. Simply writing “This is a metaphor” will not score you points on its own.
Marks are awarded for:
- Accurate identification (getting the terminology right)
- Quality of analysis (explaining its effect)
- Relevance to the question (linking back to what you are being asked)
Sophisticated vs Clear
A lot of students think that you need to learn obscure sounding terminology to reach the highest bands of the mark scheme. This misunderstanding comes from seeing that the top bands say candidates have a 'sophisticated' use of subject terminology and thinking the sophistication comes from the complexity of the term, rather than how you've used the term.
If you identify a metaphor and accurately analyse its effect, then you are well on your way to a good quality 'clear and accurate' use of subject terminology. Then again, if you were to analyse a metaphor and then explore how its effect combines with the first person narrative viewpoint in order to create an effect... now you're being sophisticated.
Sophisticated use of subject terminology comes back to how you use it to analyse. You could:
- Analyse a pattern of techniques being used (many short sentences; semantic field; lots of metaphorical language)
- Analyse how different techniques combine to create an effect
- Explore the ambiguity of effect that a technique creates (the metaphor could be suggesting... but could also mean...)
Don't forget: to hit the top bands, you have to meet the lower bands first. If you are not accurately identifying techniques, analysing their effect and/or saying something relevant to the question, then it does not matter how sophisticated you try to be - you won't reach full marks.
What Examiners Do Not Want
Feature spotting (naming devices with no analysis)
Wrong labels (calling personification a metaphor)
Mismatch (naming one device but analysing something else)
Obscure jargon (throwing in “polysyndeton” just to sound fancy and without truly analysing it)
