At my trust, we have used comparative judgement for 8 years. We use NoMoreMarking both for the national tasks, but also our internal humanities and science writing tasks. Previously, the time taken to carry out the judgments meant that colleagues rarely found time to use the process to inform teaching. Now that AI does the heavy lifting, and the platform uses AI to also provide feedback, we can use the information to make a serious difference in class. At Key Stage 3 this year we have completed the NoMoreMarking History task, a PRE task and 3 science writing tasks.
We find the AI feedback too dense for pupils to use effectively, so we upload the data to Gemini (which keeps the data secure) and ask it to preform specific analysis tasks. The report below is a response to the literacy strengths and gaps in science as demonstrated by pupils in each class.
We now use this data to inform out teaching.
Ben
Year 7 Science Writing Analysis: Syntax and Sentences
Based on the teacher reports, here is a breakdown of the cohort’s performance, focusing exclusively on grammatical syntax and writing structure, with specific examples taken from the students’ work.
| Class | Strengths | Weaknesses |
| Y7 Class A | Causal Linking: Some students utilized more advanced transition words to show contrast or result, such as “however” or “so.” | Repetitive “And” Usage: Writing often consisted of repetitive structures joined by “and,” creating long, clunky sentences. Many students provided only single-sentence summaries. |
| Y7 Class B | Precise Technical Tokens: High-achieving students correctly used chemical shorthand (e.g. “CO2“) and linked terms within functional, though simple, sentences. | Incomplete Phrasing: Many sentences lacked essential verbs or connectors, resulting in fragments. For example, “It a lot heat and pressure”. There was a noticeable lack of complexity when explaining cause and effect. |
| Y7 Class C | Emerging Causal Chains: Some students began to link ideas logically, such as connecting combustion to atmospheric changes. | Punctuation & Run-ons: Responses were often long, “run-on” strings of text missing full stops. There was a heavy reliance on the single conjunction “because” rather than varied logical connectors. |
| Y7 Class D | Use of Relative Clauses: A few students successfully used “which” to add detail to a noun (e.g., “fuels… which takes millions of years”). | Fragmented Lists: The majority of writing was “list-like” or “brief.” Students struggled to move beyond fragments to full sentences, missing words like “therefore” or “consequently”. |
| Y7 Class E | Basic Conjunctions: A small minority could use the word “because” to provide a basic reason for a scientific fact. | Syntactical Incoherence: This class had the highest rate of fragmented or nonsensical syntax, such as “e ng no noor eng” and “what is fossil fuels is when smoke comes out.” |
Reading for Learning 