題目 1 · Transactional Writing (Content, Audience & Organisation - Wi & Wii)
57 分Your school's Board of Governors is considering the following statement:
'Mobile phones should be completely banned from school premises, not just switched off during lessons.'
Write an article for your school newsletter, to be read by both students and parents, giving your own point of view on this statement. You should try to persuade your readers to agree with you.
(Content, Audience and Organisation: 57 marks. Spend about 30 minutes writing, after 15 minutes' planning.)
'Mobile phones should be completely banned from school premises, not just switched off during lessons.'
Write an article for your school newsletter, to be read by both students and parents, giving your own point of view on this statement. You should try to persuade your readers to agree with you.
(Content, Audience and Organisation: 57 marks. Spend about 30 minutes writing, after 15 minutes' planning.)
查看答案詳解收起答案詳解
解題
Should Phones Really Be Banned Completely?
Walk into any staffroom and you will hear the same complaint: phones are a distraction, a source of arguments, and, increasingly, a target for theft. So when the Board of Governors proposed banning mobile phones from the premises entirely — not just switching them off during lessons — many staff and parents nodded along. I understand why. But before we reach for the simplest solution, we should ask whether it is actually the right one.
Nobody is defending phones going off mid-lesson, or students scrolling under the desk while a teacher explains quadratic equations. That battle has already been won: phones are switched off and out of sight during lessons, and rightly so. The real question is different. Should a Year 12 student be forbidden from checking a message from a parent at lunchtime? Should a form tutor be unable to use a class group chat to remind students about a trip? A total ban does not distinguish between these situations; it simply removes the phone from the equation altogether, and with it, some genuinely useful functions.
There is also a safety argument that a blanket ban conveniently ignores. Parents like knowing that, if a school day runs late or public transport is disrupted, their child can send a two-line message rather than stand alone at a bus stop after dark with no way of reaching home. Removing that safety net does not make students safer; it simply makes the adults who care about them more anxious.
None of this means the current situation is perfect. Corridors between lessons can still feel like a room full of people talking to their screens instead of each other, and that is worth addressing. But the answer is better management, not blanket prohibition: locked phone pouches during the school day, clear consequences for anyone who breaks the rules, and lunchtime spaces where phones are put away by choice rather than by decree. This keeps the safety net for genuine emergencies while removing the daily temptation to scroll.
A total ban sounds decisive. It is also, I would argue, lazy — a single rule applied to a problem that actually needs several smaller, smarter ones. Before governors sign off on removing phones from school life altogether, they should ask students and parents what a fair balance would really look like. We might be surprised how much common ground there is.
Walk into any staffroom and you will hear the same complaint: phones are a distraction, a source of arguments, and, increasingly, a target for theft. So when the Board of Governors proposed banning mobile phones from the premises entirely — not just switching them off during lessons — many staff and parents nodded along. I understand why. But before we reach for the simplest solution, we should ask whether it is actually the right one.
Nobody is defending phones going off mid-lesson, or students scrolling under the desk while a teacher explains quadratic equations. That battle has already been won: phones are switched off and out of sight during lessons, and rightly so. The real question is different. Should a Year 12 student be forbidden from checking a message from a parent at lunchtime? Should a form tutor be unable to use a class group chat to remind students about a trip? A total ban does not distinguish between these situations; it simply removes the phone from the equation altogether, and with it, some genuinely useful functions.
There is also a safety argument that a blanket ban conveniently ignores. Parents like knowing that, if a school day runs late or public transport is disrupted, their child can send a two-line message rather than stand alone at a bus stop after dark with no way of reaching home. Removing that safety net does not make students safer; it simply makes the adults who care about them more anxious.
None of this means the current situation is perfect. Corridors between lessons can still feel like a room full of people talking to their screens instead of each other, and that is worth addressing. But the answer is better management, not blanket prohibition: locked phone pouches during the school day, clear consequences for anyone who breaks the rules, and lunchtime spaces where phones are put away by choice rather than by decree. This keeps the safety net for genuine emergencies while removing the daily temptation to scroll.
A total ban sounds decisive. It is also, I would argue, lazy — a single rule applied to a problem that actually needs several smaller, smarter ones. Before governors sign off on removing phones from school life altogether, they should ask students and parents what a fair balance would really look like. We might be surprised how much common ground there is.
評分準則
Marked using Competence Levels (CL1–CL5) across three strands: Content and Development (ideas, argument, persuasive detail); Structuring and Organisation (paragraphing, sequencing, linking); Purpose and Audience (register and techniques suited to a mixed student/parent readership and a persuasive article form). Best-fit level across the strands is converted to a mark out of 57. CL1 (1–11): a basic, undeveloped viewpoint with little persuasive technique or organisation; register not adapted to audience. CL2 (12–22): a viewpoint is given with some supporting reasons, in a recognisable article form; organisation and persuasive technique are limited. CL3 (23–34): a clear, sustained viewpoint supported by relevant, developed reasons; appropriately organised into paragraphs with a suitable opening and conclusion; some effective persuasive techniques (e.g. rhetorical question, direct address) and a register broadly suited to students and parents. CL4 (35–46): a well-developed, convincing argument that engages with an opposing view before countering it; assured paragraph structure with clear linking between ideas; a good range of persuasive techniques used purposefully; register confidently adapted to a mixed audience. CL5 (47–57): a sophisticated, tightly organised argument (e.g. concession-then-rebuttal structure) that anticipates and directly answers reader concerns; a wide range of persuasive techniques integrated fluently rather than 'bolted on'; assured, consistent control of tone for a mixed student/parent readership throughout; a genuinely persuasive, memorable conclusion. Max 57 marks.