What the exam asks
Examiners look at four things (in our words):
- Logical sequencing and progression. Does each idea follow from the one before, so that the response moves forward?
- Paragraphing. Does each paragraph have one clear central topic, and are the paragraph breaks where a reader would expect them?
- Range and accuracy of cohesive devices. Are however, whereas, as a result and similar words used correctly, and without overdoing them?
- Referencing and substitution. Do this, these, such, the former and which point clearly back to what came before, so you don’t have to repeat yourself?
| Band | What it typically looks like |
|---|---|
| 5 | Some organisation, but the progression is unclear; linkers are too few, inaccurate or over-used; poor referencing leads to repetition |
| 6 | Coherent overall, but the linking is faulty or mechanical; some referencing is unclear; paragraphs are not always logical |
| 7 | Logical, with clear progression; a range of devices, with some over- or under-use; a clear central topic in each paragraph |
| 8 | Logical sequencing throughout; cohesion handled well with only rare lapses; paragraphing well judged |
| 9 | Cohesion is so natural the reader doesn’t notice it; paragraphing is used skilfully |
The criterion applies in the same way to Academic Task 1 reports, General Training letters and Task 2 essays.
Core ideas
Coherence starts in the plan
- Macro level: introduction, body paragraphs in a logical order, then conclusion (Task 2). Each body paragraph has one central topic, announced in its first sentence.
- Micro level: each sentence grows out of the one before. Use given → new order. Start a sentence with information the reader already has and end with something new, which the next sentence can then pick up.