The table below shows the results of surveys in 2000, 2005 and 2010 about one university.
Sample Response
The tabletable data illustrates the proportion of students who gave good ratings to various aspects of a university in three different years: 2000years - 2000, 2005 and 2010.
Overall, it is clear that the percentage of students who gave good ratings to five different aspects of the university were comparatively higher in 2010 than previous years with the exception of the range of modules offered by the university.
To begin with, 65 percent of students65 percent students rated the university’s technical qualityrated the technical quality of the university as goodexcellent in 2000 and this figureratio remained broadly stablemore or less the same in the next two surveys. The most striking feature of the data wasis that there was a significant rise in the percentage of students who rated electronic resources as good. The figure stoodIt started off at 45% in 2000, rose to 72% in 2005 and finally the figurefinally, the figure almost doubled in 2010, reaching 88%which was 88%. From 2000 to 2010, there were fluctuations in the percentage of students who gave a good rate for the print resources and also the range of modules offered. While print resources received a steady good rating, 87 to 89 percent, range or major offered received a lower rating in 2010, just 27% rated it as "good". The modules offered by the university had a lower percentage of good ratings in 2010 than in 2000. Finally, the data show thatit is interesting to note that the building and teaching facilities received the same percentage of good ratingsremained constant in its percentage of good ratings by the students throughout the period, at 77%over the given period - 77% positive rating.
Why this response received Band 7.0
The response covers all five university aspects and accurately highlights the dramatic growth in electronic resources, while its introduction, overview and detailed section create a clear reporting structure. The main limitation is precision: the overview overlooks the unchanged building and teaching facilities, and the range of modules is described as fluctuating despite a steady decline. Prioritize exact trend classification and tighter comparisons before refining language.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Achievement
All five aspects are covered with mostly accurate figures, but the overview misses the constant facilities rating and one trend is misclassified as fluctuation.
State that electronic resources rose sharply, modules declined steadily, facilities stayed unchanged, and the other two measures varied only slightly.
Coherence and Cohesion
The introduction, overview and detail paragraph provide clear progression, though the discussion of module ratings is repetitive.
Group stable measures together and mention the declining module ratings once with their start and end values.
Lexical Resource
There is sufficient range for trends and proportions, but imprecise expressions such as 'gave a good rate' and 'range or major offered' weaken control.
Use consistent table labels and natural reporting phrases such as 'gave a good rating' and 'range of modules offered'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
The response attempts varied complex structures, but agreement, article and reference errors occur noticeably without obscuring the data.
Correct plural agreement and noun phrases, including 'the percentage was', '65 percent of students' and 'facilities remained constant in their ratings'.
Write this task while it is fresh
Try the same task now. It helps you remember the feedback and write better next time.
IELTS Academic Writing Task 1
The table below shows the results of surveys in 2000, 2005 and 2010 about one university.
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.