Manual for Grading the Goethe-Zertifikat C1 Writing Module (SCHREIBEN)

### **Manual for Grading the Goethe-Zertifikat C1 Writing Module (SCHREIBEN)**

#### **1\. Introduction and General Principles**

This manual provides a step-by-step guide for the evaluation of the C1 writing module. The assessment is criterion-based and follows the principles of the Goethe-Institut and the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE).

**Core Principles:**

* **Two Independent Graders:** Each writing performance is graded by two trained and certified graders working independently.
* **Blind Second Grading:** The second grader evaluates the performance without seeing the first grader's scores or comments. This is facilitated by using separate grading sheets (`Bewertungsbogen`).
* **Positive Assessment:** The evaluation focuses on what the candidate *can do*. The primary goal is to identify the candidate's strengths and overall performance level, not simply to count errors.
* **Criterion-Referenced:** Grading is based on the four established criteria: Task Fulfillment (`Aufgabenerfüllung`), Coherence (`Kohärenz`), Vocabulary (`Wortschatz`), and Structures (`Strukturen`).
* **Holistic Approach to Errors:** The impact of errors on communication is more important than the sheer number of errors. A distinction is made between errors that impede understanding and minor formal errors that do not.

---

#### **2\. Structure of the Writing Module**

The module consists of two parts with a total duration of 75 minutes:

* **Teil 1: Diskussionsbeitrag (Discussion Post)**
  * **Task:** Write a structured contribution to an online forum on a given topic.
  * **Length:** Approximately 230 words.
  * **Weighting:** 60 out of 100 points.
* **Teil 2: (Halb-)formelle Mitteilung (Semi-formal Message/Email)**
  * **Task:** Write a semi-formal email or message in a professional or academic context.
  * **Length:** Approximately 120 words.
  * **Weighting:** 40 out of 100 points.

---

#### **3\. The Four Grading Criteria Explained**

Each part of the exam is assessed using the same four criteria, though the specific point values differ.

**A. Aufgabenerfüllung (Task Fulfillment)** This is the most critical criterion. It assesses whether the candidate has understood and completed the task as required.

* **Content Points:** Have all four content points (`Inhaltspunkte`) from the prompt been addressed clearly and in sufficient detail?
* **Text Type & Register:** Does the text correspond to the required format (forum post for Teil 1, email for Teil 2)? Is the register (neutral, semi-formal) appropriate for the audience?
* **Realization of Language Functions:** Has the candidate successfully performed the required language functions? For example:
  * *Teil 1:* Explaining, providing arguments, giving examples.
  * *Teil 2:* Expressing understanding, making a problem known, proposing a solution.
* **Socio-cultural Appropriateness:** Is the tone polite and appropriate for the context (e.g., conventions of politeness in a semi-formal email)?

**B. Kohärenz (Coherence)** This criterion evaluates the logical structure and flow of the text.

* **Text Structure:** Is the text logically organized with a clear introduction, main body, and conclusion?
* **Paragraphing:** Are paragraphs used effectively to structure different ideas?
* **Linking of Sentences and Ideas:** Are sentences and clauses linked in a logical and varied manner? Is there appropriate use of connectors (`Konjunktionen`, `Verbindungsadverbien`), pronouns, and other cohesive devices to create a fluent text?

**C. Wortschatz (Vocabulary)** This criterion assesses the range and accuracy of the vocabulary used.

* **Range & Spectrum:** Does the candidate use a broad and differentiated vocabulary appropriate for the C1 level to discuss complex topics?
* **Appropriateness:** Is the vocabulary used precise, effective, and suitable for the context?
* **Control & Accuracy:** How well does the candidate control their vocabulary? Are there errors in word choice that impede communication? Nomen-Verb-Verbindungen (fixed noun-verb collocations) are a key indicator at this level.

**D. Strukturen (Structures)** This criterion assesses the range and accuracy of the grammatical structures used.

* **Range & Complexity:** Does the candidate use a variety of complex grammatical structures expected at C1 (e.g., passive voice and its alternatives, subordinate clauses, Partizipialkonstruktionen, Nominalisierung)?
* **Control & Accuracy:** How grammatically correct is the text? Assess errors in morphology (endings), syntax (word order), orthography (spelling), and punctuation. The focus is on whether errors hinder understanding.

---

#### **4\. The A-E Scoring Scale**

For each of the four criteria, a score from A to E is assigned. These letters correspond to a specific number of points.

* **A / B (C1 Level):**
  * **A:** The performance is clearly and consistently at the C1 level for the given criterion. (e.g., "angemessen", "breit, differenziert", "durchgängig effektiv").
  * **B:** The performance is largely at the C1 level, but with some minor shortcomings. (e.g., "überwiegend angemessen", "stellenweise differenziert").
* **C / D (Below C1 Level):**
  * **C:** The performance is partially adequate but shows significant weaknesses and is clearly below the C1 target level. (e.g., "stellenweise angemessen", "teilweise angemessen oder begrenzt").
  * **D:** The performance is clearly insufficient and significantly below the C1 level. Errors impede communication. (e.g., "kaum angemessen", "kaum Variation vorhanden").
* **E (Not Rateable):**
  * **E (0 points):** The performance cannot be rated. This applies to `Aufgabenerfüllung` if:
    1. The topic is completely missed (`Thema verfehlt`).
    2. The text is too short (less than 50% of the required word count).
  * For other criteria, 'E' is assigned if the text is incomprehensible due to errors or lack of structure.
  * **Crucial Rule:** If `Aufgabenerfüllung` is rated 'E' (0 points), the entire part of the exam receives 0 points.

---

#### **5\. Step-by-Step Grading Process**

**Step 1: Grade Teil 1 (Diskussionsbeitrag \- Max. 60 Points)**

Use the following table to assign scores. Read the candidate's text and, for each of the four criteria, decide on the best-fit grade (A, B, C, D, or E).

| Kriterium | A (100%) | B (75%) | C (50%) | D (25%) | E (0%) |
| :---- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| **Aufgabenerfüllung** | 14 | 10,5 | 7 | 3,5 | 0 |
| **Kohärenz** | 14 | 10,5 | 7 | 3,5 | 0 |
| **Wortschatz** | 16 | 12 | 8 | 4 | 0 |
| **Strukturen** | 16 | 12 | 8 | 4 | 0 |
| **Total Teil 1** | **60** | **45** | **30** | **15** | **0** |

**Example of Criteria for Teil 1:**

* **Aufgabenerfüllung (A):** All 4 content points are addressed in a manner that is appropriate in terms of content and scope. The register is appropriate.
* **Kohärenz (A):** The text is consistently effective in its structure. Sentences are linked appropriately and flexibly.
* **Wortschatz (A):** The vocabulary is broad and differentiated. Occasional errors do not affect the flow of reading.
* **Strukturen (A):** The grammatical structures are broad and differentiated. Occasional errors do not affect the flow of reading.

**Step 2: Grade Teil 2 ((Halb-)formelle Mitteilung \- Max. 40 Points)**

Use the following table to assign scores, following the same procedure as for Teil 1\.

| Kriterium | A (100%) | B (75%) | C (50%) | D (25%) | E (0%) |
| :---- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| **Aufgabenerfüllung** | 10 | 7,5 | 5 | 2,5 | 0 |
| **Kohärenz** | 10 | 7,5 | 5 | 2,5 | 0 |
| **Wortschatz** | 10 | 7,5 | 5 | 2,5 | 0 |
| **Strukturen** | 10 | 7,5 | 5 | 2,5 | 0 |
| **Total Teil 2** | **40** | **30** | **20** | **10** | **0** |

**Step 3: Record Scores on the `Bewertungsbogen`**

* Each grader uses a separate grading sheet (`Schreiben - Bewertung`).
* For each part (Teil 1 and Teil 2\) and for each criterion, mark the corresponding box (A, B, C, D, or E).
* Sum the points for Teil 1 and Teil 2 to get your total score for the module.

**Step 4: Calculate the Final Module Score**

The final score is the arithmetic mean of the two independent graders' total scores.

* **Passing Score:** A module is passed with a minimum of **60 points** (60%).
* **Rounding:** The arithmetic mean is rounded to the nearest whole number (e.g., 67.5 becomes 68; 67.4 becomes 67).
* **Final Score Recording:** The final calculated score is transferred to the `Schreiben - Ergebnis` form.

**Step 5: Applying the Third Assessment Rule (`Drittbewertung`)**

A third, decisive assessment is required *only if* the following **two conditions are met simultaneously**:

1. One grader's total score is **below the passing threshold** (≤ 59 points) AND the other grader's total score is **at or above the passing threshold** (≥ 60 points).
2. The **arithmetic mean of the two scores is below 60 points**.

*Example:* Grader 1 gives 62 points. Grader 2 gives 57 points. The mean is (62+57)/2 \= 59.5, which rounds to 60\. **No third assessment is needed.** The candidate passes with 60 points. *Example:* Grader 1 gives 61 points. Grader 2 gives 57 points. The mean is (61+57)/2 \= 59\. **A third assessment is required.** The third grader's score then becomes the final, decisive score.

---

## Practical Advice and Best Practices for Graders

Beyond the formal criteria, the following best practices will help ensure a consistent and fair grading process.

**A. The First Read-Through: Gaining a Holistic Impression** Before you begin scoring criterion-by-criterion, read the entire text (both Teil 1 and Teil 2\) once without making any marks. This first pass allows you to form a holistic impression of the candidate's performance. Ask yourself:

* Overall, how successful was the communication?
* *What is my initial feeling about the proficiency level (Clearly C1, borderline, below C1)?* This initial impression serves as a valuable baseline as you move into the detailed, criterion-based analysis.

**B. Handling Word Count Deviations** The prompt provides approximate word counts (ca. 230 for Teil 1, ca. 120 for Teil 2). Graders should handle deviations as follows:

* **Exceeding the word count:** There is **no penalty** for writing more than the suggested word count. The candidate is not penalized for length, only for the quality of their writing.
* Falling below the word count:
  * Slightly below: This is not automatically penalized. Grade the text on its quality. If it is short *and* the content points are not sufficiently developed, this will be reflected in a lower score for `Aufgabenerfüllung`.
  * Significantly below: As stated in the A-E scale, if the text is **less than 50% of the required word count**, the criterion `Aufgabenerfüllung` **must be rated 'E' (0 points)**, resulting in a total score of 0 for that part.

**C. Using the `Bewertungsbogen` Effectively** The grading sheet is more than just a scorecard; it is your primary tool for documenting and justifying your assessment.

* **Noting Errors and Strengths:** The `Durchführungsbestimmungen` states that relevant mistakes should be noted on the grading sheet ("*Fehlgriffe etc. werden auf dem Bogen Schreiben \- Bewertung notiert*"). In the comments section for each part, briefly note specific examples that justify your scoring.
  * **Example for a low score:** "Kohärenz C: Logik an 2 Stellen unklar, kaum Satzverknüpfer."
  * **Example for a high score:** "Wortschatz A: Treffender, differenzierter Wortschatz (e.g., *Vertraulichkeit gewährleisten, in Aussicht stellen*)."
* This practice is crucial for consistency, for potential third assessments, and for providing a clear rationale for your decisions.

**D. The Interconnection of Criteria** While you grade the four criteria separately, remember they are interconnected. A major weakness in one area often affects others.

* **Example:** A severe lack of vocabulary (`Wortschatz`) may make it impossible for the candidate to address the content points adequately, thus also lowering the score for `Aufgabenerfüllung`. Similarly, fundamental grammatical errors (`Strukturen`) can make the text illogical and hard to follow, which would lower the `Kohärenz` score. Keep this holistic view in mind.

###

### **6\. Final Checklist for Graders**

Before finalizing your score, ask yourself:

- [ ] **Task Fulfillment:** Did the candidate understand the core task for both parts? Were all content points addressed?
- [ ] **Coherence:** Is the text easy to follow? Is it well-structured?
- [ ] **C1 Level Evidence:** Where does the candidate demonstrate C1-level vocabulary and grammar? (e.g., complex sentences, varied expressions, precise vocabulary).
- [ ] **Impact of Errors:** Do the errors prevent me from understanding the message, or are they minor slips?
- [ ] **Overall Impression:** Does the performance, as a whole, reflect the communicative competence of a C1 user ("kompetente Sprachverwendung")?
- [ ] **Score Justification:** Can I justify my score for each criterion based on the specific evidence in the text and the descriptions in the A-E scale?

---

Rated examples
---

### **Example 1: Schreiben Teil 1 (Discussion Post)**

#### **The Task (Prompt)**

* **Forum:** Internetforum Karriere & Beruf
* **Topic:** Studieren – aber was? Für welches Studienfach sollte man sich entscheiden?
* **Content Points to Address:**
  1. Erklären Sie, nach welchen Kriterien sich die Wahl des Studienfachs richten sollte. (Explain the criteria for choosing a field of study.)
  2. Argumentieren Sie anhand eines Beispiels für ein Studienfach. (Argue for a field of study using an example.)
  3. Nennen Sie Gründe, die gegen ein Studium sprechen könnten. (Name reasons that might speak against studying.)
  4. Erläutern Sie eine Alternative zum Studium. (Explain an alternative to studying.)
* **Length:** ca. 230 Wörter

#### **The Student's Text**

Heute wird kontrovers darüber diskutiert, was für Kriterien Schulabgängerinnen und Schulabgänger berücksichtigen sollten, um die richtige Entscheidung in Bezug auf ihre Studienwahl zu treffen. Einerseits vertreten viele den Standpunkt, man sollte vor allem auf die Arbeitsmöglichkeiten des gewünschten Studiengangs achten. Andererseits sind viele Menschen der festen Überzeugung, dass das Wichtigste dabei ist, das lieben, was man in seinem Leben ausüben wird. Meiner Ansicht nach sind beide Kriterien entscheidend bei der Wahl, aber auch die wirtschaftliche Lage der Person, die Situation in dem Land, und die eigenen Fähigkeiten spielen eine wichtige Rolle darin. In Kolumbien, zum Beispiel, liegt die gegenwärtige Gesellschaft mehr Wert auf Studiengänge im Bereich der Naturwissenschaften, weswegen die im geisteswissenschaftlichen Bereich unterschätzt und weniger unterstützt werden. Aus diesem Grund ist es häufig so, dass Lehrer ein geringes Einkommen bekommen und es für sie und für ausgebildete Menschen in Philosophie, Soziologie, Geschichte und Sprachwissenschaft erheblich schwierig ist, eine gute Arbeitsstelle zu finden, die ihnen akzeptable Bedingungen anbietet, selbst wenn sie über außergewöhnliche Fähigkeiten verfügen und die Wille haben, so gut wie möglich zu arbeiten.

Ein weiterer, noch wichtiger Aspekt ist die wirtschafliche Situation. Manche Studiengänge sind zu teuer und viele Menschen können sich daher nicht leisten, die zu studieren. Nichtsdestoweniger gibt es heute andere Ausbildungsmöglichkeiten, die günstiger sind und eine gute Ausbildung bieten: In Kolumbien kann man beispielsweise in der Bildungseinrichtung „SENA" studieren und ein Diplom in einem praktischen Bereich bekommen, der gute Arbeitsmöglichkeiten hat.

Abschließend lässt sich sagen, außer der eigenen Vorliebe und der Arbeitsmöglichkeiten des Studiums, sind andere Aspekte auch zu achten.

Laura

#### **Overall Score: 52.5 / 60 points**

---

#### **Detailed Grading Analysis**

**1\. Aufgabenerfüllung (Task Fulfillment)**

* **Score:** **B (10.5 / 14 points)**
* **Official Commentary:** The candidate addresses three of the four points appropriately. However, the second point (argue *for* a field of study) is not fulfilled; instead, the candidate argues *against* humanities.
* **Connection to the Text:**
  * **Point 1 (Criteria):** **Fulfilled.** The text mentions "Arbeitsmöglichkeiten," personal passion ("das lieben, was man... ausüben wird"), "wirtschaftliche Lage," and "eigenen Fähigkeiten."
  * **Point 2 (Argue *for* a major):** **Not fulfilled.** The text provides a detailed example from Colombia but uses it to show the *disadvantages* and poor job prospects of humanities ("Lehrer ein geringes Einkommen," "erheblich schwierig ist, eine gute Arbeitsstelle zu finden"). This is the main reason for the 'B' grade.
  * **Point 3 (Reasons against studying):** **Fulfilled.** The text clearly states that some fields of study are too expensive ("Manche Studiengänge sind zu teuer").
  * **Point 4 (Alternative):** **Fulfilled.** The candidate names the educational institution "SENA" in Colombia as a practical, affordable alternative.

**2\. Kohärenz (Coherence)**

* **Score:** **A (14 / 14 points)**
* **Official Commentary:** The text is logically structured and easy to follow, with varied and effective use of connectors.
* **Connection to the Text:**
  * **Structure:** The text has a clear introduction, main body, and conclusion.
  * **Connectors:** The text uses a wide range of connectors effectively:
    * Contrasting: `Einerseits`, `Andererseits`
    * Causal: `Aus diesem Grund`, `weswegen`
    * Concessive: `selbst wenn`, `Nichtsdestoweniger`
    * Exemplifying: `zum Beispiel`
    * Structuring: `Ein weiterer, noch wichtiger Aspekt ist...`, `Abschließend lässt sich sagen...`
  * This variety creates a very fluent and sophisticated text flow, justifying the top score.

**3\. Wortschatz (Vocabulary)**

* **Score:** **B (12 / 16 points)**
* **Official Commentary:** The vocabulary is broad and differentiated, but some minor errors slightly impede the reading flow.
* **Connection to the Text:**
  * **Strengths (C1 Level):** `kontrovers diskutiert`, `den Standpunkt vertreten`, `der festen Überzeugung sein`, `geisteswissenschaftlichen Bereich`, `erheblich schwierig`, `außergewöhnliche Fähigkeiten`, `Nichtsdestoweniger`.
  * **Weaknesses/Errors:**
    * "...liegt... mehr Wert auf" (should be "...legt... mehr Wert auf").
    * "...die Wille haben" (should be "...den Willen haben").
    * "...außer der eigenen Vorliebe..." (grammatically correct, but "abgesehen von" would be more idiomatic).
  * These minor slips prevent a top score but do not obscure the meaning, making 'B' appropriate.

**4\. Strukturen (Grammar & Syntax)**

* **Score:** **A (16 / 16 points)**
* **Official Commentary:** A broad range of complex structures is used, and the few errors are minor and do not disrupt the reading flow.
* **Connection to the Text:**
  * **Strengths (C1 Level):**
    * Complex sentences: "...weswegen die im geisteswissenschaftlichen Bereich unterschätzt und weniger unterstützt werden."
    * Extended clauses: "...eine gute Arbeitsstelle zu finden, die ihnen akzeptable Bedingungen anbietet, selbst wenn sie über außergewöhnliche Fähigkeiten verfügen..."
  * **Weaknesses/Errors:**
    * "...das Wichtigste dabei ist, das lieben..." (Missing "zu": *das zu lieben*).
    * "...die Wille haben" (Article/declension error).
  * Because these errors are isolated and the overall sentence structure is complex and well-controlled, an 'A' score is justified.

---

### **Example 2: Schreiben Teil 2 (Semi-formal Email)**

#### **The Task (Prompt)**

* **Situation:** Your company has moved to a new building during your vacation. Upon return, you discover you no longer have a private office but are in a room with six colleagues.
* **Task:** Write a complaint to your supervisor, Frau Grimm.
* **Content Points to Address:**
  1. Eröffnen Sie Ihr Schreiben höflich, indem Sie Verständnis für Sachzwänge zeigen. (Begin politely by showing understanding for the constraints.)
  2. Nennen Sie Tätigkeiten, die durch den neuen Platz erschwert werden. (Name activities that are made more difficult by the new space.)
  3. Beschreiben Sie Arbeitsbedingungen, die für Sie akzeptabel wären. (Describe working conditions that would be acceptable to you.)
  4. Machen Sie einen Kompromissvorschlag. (Make a compromise proposal.)
* **Length:** ca. 120 Wörter

#### **The Student's Text**

Sehr geehrte Frau Grimm,

mit meinem Schreiben möchte ich auf das Thema Arbeitsbedingungen nach dem Umzug eingehen. Mögen Sie sich auf unser Gespräch kurz vor meinem Urlaub erinnern, in dem Sie mir im neuen Gebäude ein Büro für zwei Personen in Aussicht gestellt haben. Nach meiner Rückkehr habe ich festgestellt, dass ich den Raum noch mit sechs Kolleginnen und Kollegen zu teilen habe, die teilweise für den Verkauf in unserer Firma tätig sind. Als Einkaufsleiterin verhandle ich mit den Lieferanten nicht nur schriftlich per mail, sondern auch telefonisch oder per Skype. Es ist offenbar nicht im Interesse des Unternehmens, wenn sensible Daten wie Einkaufspreise bzw. \-bedingungen an Mitarbeiter gelangen, die keinen Zugang zu solchen Daten haben sollten. Ich benötige einen Arbeitsplatz, der Vertraulichkeit gewährleisten kann. Wenn die neuen Räumlichkeiten kein separates Büro anbieten können, schlage ich vor, eine leichte Modulwand zu errichten, um sowohl mich, als auch meine Kollegin im Einkaufsbereich Frau Schneider abzugrenzen. Für einen Zusammenbau braucht man keine Bauarbeiter, die Leistungen sind im Preis für leichte Modulwände bereits enthalten. Ungefähr belaufen sich die Kosten auf 100,00 Euro.

Hoffe auf Ihr Verständnis.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Nataliya Brahms

#### **Overall Score: 37.5 / 40 points**

---

#### **Detailed Grading Analysis**

**1\. Aufgabenerfüllung (Task Fulfillment)**

* **Score:** **B (7.5 / 10 points)**
* **Official Commentary:** Three points are well addressed, but the first point (showing understanding for the situation) is missing.
* **Connection to the Text:**
  * **Point 1 (Show understanding):** **Not fulfilled.** The email begins directly by referencing a past conversation ("Mögen Sie sich auf unser Gespräch... erinnern"). It does not contain a phrase like "Ich verstehe, dass der Umzug kompliziert war und Einsparungen nötig sind, jedoch..." This omission is the reason for the 'B' grade.
  * **Point 2 (Difficulties):** **Fulfilled.** The candidate clearly explains the need for confidentiality when negotiating with suppliers and the risk of sensitive data being overheard ("sensible Daten wie Einkaufspreise...").
  * **Point 3 (Acceptable conditions):** **Fulfilled.** The candidate states the need for a workspace that guarantees confidentiality ("Ich benötige einen Arbeitsplatz, der Vertraulichkeit gewährleisten kann.").
  * **Point 4 (Compromise):** **Fulfilled.** A concrete, practical, and well-explained proposal is made: installing a modular wall (`leichte Modulwand`) and even mentioning the cost and ease of installation.

**2\. Kohärenz (Coherence)**

* **Score:** **A (10 / 10 points)**
* **Official Commentary:** The text is structured effectively with varied and appropriate connectors.
* **Connection to the Text:** The email follows a perfect logical progression: Reminder of agreement \-\> Description of new problem \-\> Justification of why it's a problem \-\> Proposal for a solution. It uses connectors like `nicht nur ... sondern auch`, `wenn`, `um sowohl ... als auch` flawlessly.

**3\. Wortschatz (Vocabulary)**

* **Score:** **A (10 / 10 points)**
* **Official Commentary:** The vocabulary is broad, differentiated, and includes topic-specific terms.
* **Connection to the Text:** The candidate demonstrates excellent, professional vocabulary: `in Aussicht gestellt haben`, `im Interesse des Unternehmens`, `sensible Daten`, `Vertraulichkeit gewährleisten`, `Räumlichkeiten`, `eine Modulwand errichten`, `abzugrenzen`, `sich belaufen auf`. The word choices are precise and effective.

**4\. Strukturen (Grammar & Syntax)**

* **Score:** **A (10 / 10 points)**
* **Official Commentary:** The range of structures is broad, and the very few errors are minor and do not disrupt the reading flow.
* **Connection to the Text:**
  * **Strengths:** Excellent use of complex sentences and grammatical structures. The sentence "Es ist offenbar nicht im Interesse des Unternehmens, wenn sensible Daten... an Mitarbeiter gelangen, die keinen Zugang zu solchen Daten haben sollten" is a perfect example of C1-level syntax.
  * **Weaknesses/Errors:** The closing "Hoffe auf Ihr Verständnis" is missing the subject "Ich," making it slightly colloquial but perfectly understandable. This is a very minor slip in an otherwise grammatically superb text, justifying the 'A' score.

You have been given the grading manual and now you will be provided with the task and the students' response to the task. Follow the grading manual and grade the exam.