Understanding Band Descriptors

Warm-up: Think like the examiner

2 warm-up questions

• Have you ever received a band score for your writing? Did you understand why you got that number?
• Here is today's question: 'Some people believe that employees should be allowed to work from home. Others think that this arrangement harms both workers and companies. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.' Take two minutes and outline your answer out loud — position, two body ideas, conclusion.

Reading: IELTS Writing Band Descriptors

Read a 227-word text about IELTS Writing Band Descriptors

Understanding Band Descriptors Your writing is assessed on four criteria, each worth 25% of your score. 1. Task Achievement/Response (25%) Task 1: Did you describe all key features with an overview? Task 2: Did you answer the question with a clear position? Did you develop ideas fully? 2. Coherence & Cohesion (25%) Is your essay logically organized? Do you use paragraphs effectively? Are your ideas clearly linked? 3. Lexical Resource (25%) Do you use a range of vocabulary? Is vocabulary used accurately? Do you use less common words appropriately? 4. Grammatical Range & Accuracy (25%) Do you use varied sentence structures? Are complex sentences used correctly? How frequent and serious are errors? Band 7 Requirements: Clear position throughout Logical organization with progression Less common vocabulary with awareness of collocation Complex structures with flexibility and accuracy Where the bands live in practice: At Band 5, the examiner sees ideas that stop after one sentence, the same words recycled, and errors in most sentences. At Band 6, everything is relevant and understandable, but development is thin and the language plays safe. At Band 7, the position is clear in every paragraph, each idea is extended with explanation and example, and less common vocabulary appears — used correctly. In this lesson you will watch one essay climb that ladder, and learn to explain every step the way an examiner would.

Vocabulary: Assessment Vocabulary

6 items

Reading: The Band 5.5 answer

Read a 449-word text about The Band 5.5 answer

The test: one question, three answers Here is the question from the warm-up: “Some people believe that employees should be allowed to work from home. Others think that this arrangement harms both workers and companies. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.” One candidate answered it three times, climbing one band each time. First, the Band 5.5 answer — read it and feel where it struggles. The Band 5.5 answer (about 225 words) Nowadays, work from home is very popular topic in the world. Some people think it is good idea and other people think it is bad for the workers and the companies. In this essay I will discuss both views. Firstly, work from home have many advantages. People who work from home can save a lot of time, because they do not need to travel to the office every day. Also, they can take care of their kids at the same time. For example, my friend works from home and she says she is very happy now. Moreover, work from home is good because workers can make their own schedule. Secondly, work from home have also disadvantages. Some people say that workers at home do not work hard, because the company cannot control them. Also, working from home is lonely. You cannot meet your colleagues and talk with them, and this is bad for the mental health. Another problem is that some houses are small and noisy, so it is difficult to concentrate to the work. In my opinion, work from home is good and bad. It depends on the person and the job. Some jobs are possible to do from home, but other jobs are not possible. In conclusion, there are advantages and disadvantages about work from home. I think companies should let the workers choose, because every person have a different situation. What the examiner writes in the margin Task Response (≈5): both views appear, but every idea stops after one sentence. The “opinion” is “good and bad — it depends”, which is not a position. The only example is a friend. Coherence & Cohesion (≈6): the paragraphs are in a sensible order, but the linking is a shopping list — Firstly, Also, Moreover, Secondly — and “In my opinion” plus “In conclusion” do the same job twice. Lexical Resource (≈5): work from home appears nine times; good and bad carry all the evaluation; kids and a lot of are informal; concentrate to the work is a collocation error. Grammatical Range & Accuracy (≈5): repeated agreement errors (work from home have…, every person have…), article errors (very popular topic, the mental health), and almost every sentence follows the same simple pattern. Average: Band 5.5.

Reading: The Band 6.5 answer — what changed

Read a 453-word text about The Band 6.5 answer — what changed

The Band 6.5 answer — what changed Same question, same candidate, one band higher. Notice that the ideas are almost the same — what changed is what the examiner can see: a position, paragraphs that finish their job, and vocabulary that varies. The Band 6.5 answer (about 255 words) In recent years, remote work has become normal in many industries. While some people believe that employees should be free to work from home, others argue that this arrangement harms both staff and businesses. I believe that the benefits of remote working outweigh the drawbacks, although companies need clear rules to make it work. On the one hand, working from home offers real advantages. The most important is flexibility: employees avoid long journeys to the office, which gives them more time for their families and reduces stress. In addition, many workers are more productive at home because the office is full of interruptions; several large companies have reported that staff completed tasks faster after they were allowed to work remotely. Companies benefit as well, since they spend less money on office space. On the other hand, opponents argue that remote work damages communication. When colleagues never meet, it is harder to share ideas and build trust, and new employees cannot learn by watching experienced staff. Furthermore, some people feel isolated at home, which can affect their motivation and their mental health. However, in my view these problems can be managed. Companies can ask staff to come to the office once or twice a week and organise regular video meetings. This hybrid model keeps the flexibility of remote work but protects teamwork and training. In conclusion, although working from home creates some challenges, I believe employees should be allowed to do it because the advantages are greater. Businesses that combine home and office working are most likely to keep their staff happy and productive. Why each criterion jumped Task Response (now ≈7): the position arrives in the introduction — “the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, although…” — and is still standing in the conclusion. Each idea gets an explanation, though the evidence stays general (“several large companies”). Coherence & Cohesion (now ≈6–7): one idea per paragraph and the linking is correct — but it is the predictable set (On the one hand… On the other hand… In addition… Furthermore), parked at the start of nearly every sentence. Lexical Resource (now ≈6–7): the repetition is solved with remote work / working from home / hybrid model, and the informal words are gone. Less common phrases are still rare. Grammatical Range & Accuracy (now ≈7): agreement and article errors have disappeared; there are complex sentences (which gives them…, although…) — but the structures play safe. Average: Band 6.5.

Reading: The Band 7.5 answer — and the whole ladder

Read a 524-word text about The Band 7.5 answer — and the whole ladder

The Band 7.5 answer — and the whole ladder One more band. Watch what Band 7.5 does that Band 6.5 does not: the position becomes nuanced, every idea is taken one step further, and the connectors almost disappear — the ideas themselves carry the flow. The structural moves are in bold. The Band 7.5 answer (about 250 words) The question of whether staff should be permitted to work from home has divided employers ever since technology made it possible. While I accept that badly managed remote work can damage collaboration, I would argue that the flexibility it offers benefits employees and companies alike — provided it is combined with regular face-to-face contact. The strongest argument in favour of home working is the time it returns to employees. Commuting consumes hours that could otherwise be spent on family, rest or professional development, and removing it is consistently linked to higher job satisfaction. Employers gain in turn: a company that offers genuine flexibility can recruit from a far wider pool, and is more likely to retain experienced staff who might otherwise leave. In other words, flexibility is not a gift to employees but a competitive advantage. Admittedly, critics are right that something is lost when colleagues never share a room. Spontaneous conversations — the source of many good ideas — rarely happen on scheduled video calls, and junior employees in particular learn by watching experienced ones. Yet this is an argument for designing remote work intelligently, not for abandoning it: a hybrid arrangement with two or three office days a week preserves mentoring and team spirit while keeping the flexibility that staff value. In conclusion, the drawbacks of working from home are real but manageable, whereas its advantages — reclaimed time, wider recruitment and greater autonomy — are substantial. Companies should therefore allow it, not as an unconditional right but as a carefully designed policy that keeps people connected. Why each criterion jumped again Task Response: the position is now nuanced — “yes, provided…” — and it is argued in every paragraph, not just announced once. Each idea goes point → explanation → consequence (“In other words, flexibility is… a competitive advantage”). Coherence & Cohesion: progression no longer depends on stock connectors. Ideas connect by referring back — “Employers gain in turn”, “Yet this is an argument for…” — and paragraphs open with claims, not signposts. Lexical Resource: precise, less common phrasing used naturally — consumes hours, recruit from a far wider pool, spontaneous conversations, unconditional right — with accurate collocation throughout. Grammatical Range & Accuracy: concession clauses, relative clauses, conditionals and parenthetical dashes, used flexibly with only rare slips. Average: Band 7.5. The whole ladder in five lines Position: invisible (5.5) → stated and held (6.5) → nuanced and argued everywhere (7.5). Development: one sentence per idea → idea + explanation → idea + explanation + consequence. Vocabulary: good/bad and repetition → adequate synonyms → precise, less common phrases that carry the argument. Cohesion: mechanical list (Firstly, Also) → correct but predictable connectors → ideas that refer back to each other. Grammar: frequent basic errors → accurate but safe → wide range with rare slips.

Practice: Whose criterion is it?

Matching exercise, 6 items

• By the end of the essay I still do not know what YOU think.
• Your only evidence is one sentence about a friend — explain and extend it.
• 'However' opens a sentence where nothing contrasts with anything.
• This paragraph contains three different main ideas.
• The same phrase appears nine times in 250 words.
• Singular subjects keep taking plural verbs.

Discussion: Your mission: be the examiner

3 discussion questions

• Mission: be the examiner. Go back to the Band 6.5 answer and give it your own score for each of the four criteria, quoting one sentence as evidence for each score. Success = four scores, four quotes. (Tutor: challenge any score the student cannot support with a quote.)
• Second take: take the Band 5.5 essay's second paragraph and say it again at Band 7 — one clear point, a full explanation, one developed example, and none of these words: 'a lot of', 'kids', 'good', 'bad'.
• Compare with your two-minute outline from the warm-up: which band was it heading for, and what is the single change that would lift it one band?