Understanding the Contribution of Coherence and

Cohesion to the Band Score Rating in Writing Task 2 of

the IELTS Test

Mohammad Ali Dastgheib1 Ahmad Pourghasem2 Elham Gerami3

Amirkabir University of Amirkabir University of Amirkabir University of
Technology (Tehran Technology (Tehran Technology (Tehran Polytechinic),
Polytechinic), Tehran, Iran Polytechinic),International Language International Language Center,
Center, Tehran, Iran Tehran, Iran
E.mail: [email protected]
(Corresponding Author) E.mail: [email protected]
E.mail: [email protected]

Abstract—IELTS is a high-stakes English test for study, migration or work. It has four
components, namely Speaking, Listening, Reading and Writing. In many surveys, candidates
claim that the most challenging part of the test is the second writing task which is the last
section of the exam as well. In this paper, we have analyzed the essentialities of this task for
ones who aim to score bands 6 and 7, the two most popular band scores aspirants for different
purposes yearn to earn. Analysis-based instructions curated for accomplishing band 6 are
provided separately, under titles of a. coherence, and b. cohesion; however, for acing the
exam with band score 7, complex methods and approaches that incorporate and merge both
of the sub-skills are aptly derived from IELTS authentic reference materials and
demonstrated in bright and realistic manner.
Keywords—IELTS; writing task 2; coherence; cohesion; IELTS performance descriptors;
IELTS band descriptors

1
Student of “IELTS FOR TEACHERS” course at International Language Center
2
TESOL Trainer and Staff Member of International Language Center
3
IELTS Trainer and Staff Member of International Language Center
I. INTRODUCTION
The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) measures the language
proficiency of people who want to study or work where English is used as a language of
communication. IELTS is available in “Academic” and “General” module and both versions
provide a valid and accurate assessment of the four language skills: listening, reading, writing and
speaking [1]. The writing section of the modules consists of two tasks; task 1, in which format, the
modules are significantly different form each other, and task 2, which is mainly the same between
the two modules. In this article, focus is dedicated to the latter task of the writing section; however,
in order to get a valid band score on the exam, one must attempt to answer both of the tasks. In
Table. 1. an abridged description of the task format, task focus, marking criteria and performance
descriptors excerpted from the IELTS authentic website is presented [1].
Each component or section of the test has its own band score table, and the overall band score
is the average of the four component scores, rounded to the nearest whole or half band. Since the
writing component has two sections, each of them has its own “band descriptor” table. The value
of band descriptors for each component is that they demonstrate the quantitative equivalent to the
performance descriptors as performance descriptors are not provided for in-practice aims and
student preparation intentions. For the purposes of this article, only the writing task 2 band
descriptor, particularly the “coherence and cohesion” criterion, will be subjected to scrutiny.
It is of fundamental importance that one who reads this paper has a consolidated understanding
of the two concepts of “coherence” and “cohesion”. Hence their literal, yet practical and easy-to-
absorb definition should be illustrated (as will be in section 3). When we encounter a language,
whether through the spoken or the written medium, quite a lot more takes place than simply hearing
a sequence of sounds or reading a sequence of letters; how we communicate with these sequences
continues to be a central issue in language studies.
For over three decades now, matters of cohesion and coherence have intrigued researchers of
text and discourse. A great number of models of analysis have been introduced, showing how
cohesion and coherence are manifested in different types of spoken and written discourse.
Applications of the models to teaching, and reports on the suitability of different models for
instruction, are almost as numerous [2]. As a result, we have an abundance of books, studies and
articles focusing on various aspects of cohesion and coherence. The assertion that there are features
in texts which help make them appear as unified wholes rather than as collections of unrelated
sentences or utterances will therefore come as no surprise to anyone involved in text and discourse
studies [2].

II. RESEARCH QUESTION, METHOD AND PROCEDURE

Given the extensive interest attracted by cohesion, what is somewhat surprising is the fact that
while we have several accounts of cohesion in particular types of discourse, from children’s stories
to student essays to academic papers, studies dealing with cohesion across several types of discourse
are much harder to find [3]. It is also quite difficult to compare the results of the existing studies in
order to form a unified picture of the use of cohesion in different types of discourse, since each
study will typically use an approach tailored for the analysis of a particular type of discourse.
Consequently, there still exist notable gaps in our understanding of the effects on the use of cohesion
of the different contexts in which speakers, writers, listeners and readers operate and communicate.
 Yet, for complementing our understanding of the functioning of cohesion in discourse, comparisons
of the operation of cohesion in texts produced under different conditions would be essential [3].
Finding a suitable model of analysis forms an important part of the present investigation. As
already noted, there is no scarcity of models created for the analysis of cohesion, but each study
typically brings with it specific problems and questions and thereby also a need for modifications
of existing models [3]. The present study is no exception in this respect. However, while the model
used in this study slightly differs from earlier models, there is a conviction behind our model which
is similar to that informing earlier models, namely the belief that the choice of lexis is one of the
primary means available to speakers and writers for creating continuity in their messages.
In this article, we aspire to answer the following question: Which parts of the “coherence and
cohesion” sub-skill should be manifested through the essay of a candidate in writing task 2 in order
to increase one’s score for different band scores of writing task 2. Among different methodologies
in research, we consider to establish analytical methods. The remaining of this paper is organized
as the following: in section three, recent articles related to our topic will be presented briefly, while
in section four we explain our understanding drawn from precise investigation in detail. The
article’s conclusion is in section five, and last but not least, references section of the paper resides
in the ending.

RELATED WORKS
III.
Broadly, all published methods in this scope of language learning and testing of language, focus
on academic writing without considering IELTS authentic band descriptors as a ground truth in
their studies, however, recent advances in different frameworks of teaching as well as the advent of
new schemes, such as task-based learning, has paved the way for researches dedicated to succeeding
in the IELTS test using the IELTS-provided materials solely. Among which, two has concentrated
on writing task 2 challenges: [4, 5]. In [4], the authors explored “The Effect of Six Different
Corrective Feedback Strategies on Iranian English Language Learners’ IELTS Writing Task 2” and
concluded that:
 Like many of the studies, the findings of this study adds to the bulk of knowledge
regarding CF strategies. The main theoretical implication of the study is that it dealt with
a particular domain of the language and revolved around a phenomenon, writing, under
a “parent” category, socio-culturalism. In this respect, the researcher studied writing
without recourse to other territories or perspectives.
 Another significant contribution of the study is that the benefits of reformulation extend
beyond form and grammatical structure and encompass other band descriptors in the
IELTS writing scoring rubric, namely, task achievement, coherence and cohesion, and
lexical resources because the feedback provider dealt with those things at the same time,
for the definition of reformulation sanctioned feedback on other areas as well.
In [5], while the authors were working on “The Effect of Teaching Cohesive Devices on IELTS
Writing Task 2 of Iranian Foreign Language Learners”, they found out that:
 Test time limitation and other test conditions were based on IELTS standards except the
familiarity with the topic from the pre-test. Participants took the IELTS writing task 2
after being exposed to cohesive devices for 450 minutes.
 As the results of the post-test indicated, there was a statistically significant difference
between the mean scores of pre and post-test. The basis of IELTS writing task 2, is the
 application of linkers that participants learnt how to use them in writing sessions
treatment.
 The novel aspect of this research based on the results of present studies was that EFL
learners who are sometimes concerned about the results of their IELTS writing scores
may have more promising future through thoughtfully planned linkers treatment.
Although derived remarks from [4, 5] unveil many unknown aspects of the matter of how to
implement “coherence and cohesion”, it is still quite unresolved that which parts of coherence or
cohesion is critical to be used by the candidate in order to for example achieve the band score 7.
Therefore, it should be claimed that our article is, to our best knowledge, the first in taking this
problematic question into account.

IV.PROPOSED ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The first part of this section is devoted to an exploration of the concepts of cohesion and
coherence. It was already pointed out in the introductory section that they are of fundamental
importance in the present study. Indeed, it would not be an overstatement to note that the
relationship between cohesion and coherence, and their role in discourse, are the cornerstones on
which the analysis rests. It is therefore appropriate to dedicate a part to these two concepts.

1- Cohesion (Unity of Discourse): As the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s dictionary

defines it, cohesion means “when the members of a group or society are united” [6],
nonetheless it refers to the way texts use grammar and vocabulary to adhere ideas together
which is done through articles, pronouns, word families, summary nouns and synonyms.
Cohesion is a dominantly important aspect of academic writing, because it immediately
affects the tone of your writing, however, cohesive writing does not mean just
grammatically-connected correct sentences; it refers to the connection of your ideas both
at the sentence level and at the paragraph level [7].
2- Coherence (Consistency and Integrity): Meaning literally "to fit altogether" [6] (the
corresponding verb is “cohere”), in writing it means that all the ideas in a paragraph flow
smoothly from one sentence to the next sentence. With coherence, the reader has an easy
time understanding the ideas that you wish to express. Paragraph integrity means that one
paragraph is about only one main topic. That is, all the sentences – the topic, supporting
sentences, the detail sentences, and (sometimes) the concluding sentence – are all telling
the reader about one main topic. If your paragraph contains a sentence or some sentences
that are not related to the main topic, then we say that the paragraph "lacks unity," or that
the sentence is "off-topic" [7].
3- Cohesion and Coherence, Independent but Intertwined: Let us start with Halliday and
Hasan, who in 1976 introduced the concept of cohesion in Cohesion in English [7]. They
use it to refer to relations of meaning that exist within a text and that define it as a text. The
definition is thus a semantic one, and like all the components of the semantic system,
cohesion is realised through grammar and vocabulary. Cohesion can therefore be divided
into grammatical and lexical cohesion. Grammatical cohesion includes devices such as
 reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction, while lexical cohesion is divided into
reiteration (repetition, synonymy etc.) and collocation (co-occurrence of lexical items) [7].
Halliday and Hasan emphasise that grammatical and lexical elements become cohesive only
when they are interpreted through their relation to some other element in the text, i.e. no
single element can be cohesive by itself [7]. But when two elements in a text are related, a
cohesive tie is formed, contributing to the unity of the text. Cohesion in English includes an
exhaustive treatment of grammatical cohesive devices, at the expense of that of lexical
cohesion, which receives a considerably more limited discussion. This is surprising in view
of the fact that grammatical ties in a text can be, and usually are, easier to detect than lexical
ties, which can be very subtle. Halliday and Hasan note themselves that the effect of
grammatical cohesion is clearer than that of lexical cohesion: reference items, substitutes
and conjunctions clearly presuppose another element for their interpretation, whereas
lexical items carry no indication of their possible cohesive function [7].
Example (1) comes from [8] and cohesive elements, which in this example are all instances
of repetition, are in italics:
>> (1) The discussions ended last week. A week has seven days. Every day I feed
my cat. Cats have four legs. The cat is on the mat. Mat has three letters. <<
Examples such as (1) demonstrate that a set of sentences, despite abundant cohesive ties,
does not form a unified whole if coherence between the propositions is non-existent; in [8]’s
words the text is pseudo-coherent. By contrast, we can consider example (2), which has
been used to demonstrate that coherence can be created without cohesion.
>> (2) A: That’s the telephone. B: I’m in the bath. A: O.K. <<
There is no surface textual cohesion in this short text, but the three utterances still form a
plausible whole, because a situation can easily be imagined in which their propositional
content would make sense together, i.e. cohere. Consequently, it was concluded that overt
markers of cohesion are only of secondary importance in the creation of unity in text,
compared to the covert aboutness created by coherence [8].
In this part, we need to introduce the reader to the original band descriptor for the “coherence
and cohesion” sub-skill, specifically for the sake of observing coherence in this article. In Table.
2., the public version of this band descriptor is presented [1]. As the band score 0 for writing task
2 indicates the fact that either the test-taker did not attend or wrote a totally memorised response,
there is no description for this band in terms of coherence and cohesion.
We can compare any two arbitrary band score with each other and investigate what it takes to
be manifested through the essay of a candidate in order to boost his/her band score to the desired
level. However, as this procedure may not be fruitful for any two band score, specifically from the
students and candidates’ point of view, we concentrate on systematically analyzing two of the band
scores that the majority of candidates aim for:
A. Band score 6; ideal for one planning to apply for occupational purposes abroad
B. Band score 7 (and 8); for anyone who pursues academic goals in English-speaking
countries)
 We have defined coherence and unity so far, however, we need to provide another
interpretation of those two from the IELTS examiner’s point of view. Coherence refers to how
easy it is for the reader (the examiner) to understand and follow your ideas. Unity refers to how
you connect those ideas together, and this also affects how easy it is to follow your ideas. If one
already knows his/her IELTS band score, and is hoping to change his/her score, then the
description of the current band shows where he/she is going wrong, and the description of the band
one would like to be tells him/her what is needed to improve and work on. In Table. 3., highlights
of each description for band scores 6 and 7 are arranged, followed by the detailed comparison
between them:
1- With the first bullet point we can see, for band 6 and band 7, that ideas are presented clearly
and coherently. The difference is in the ‘progression’ of these ideas. This means how the
writer’s ideas lead from one to another and build up on each other to create the argument
[9]. With band 6 candidates, this is done clearly ‘overall’, but with band 7, this is much
more consistent. So, we could say that, with a band 6 or 6.5 answer, we can generally
follow the argument, but with a band 7 answer, we can follow the argument ‘throughout’
the essay [10].
2- That idea may be linked to the second bullet point, which refers to paragraphing. At band
6, the ideas within a paragraph sometimes appear a little odd or as though they belong in
another part of the essay. But a Band 7 candidate is able to logically present their ideas. It
is always maintained that one can only achieve this by planning his/her answer before
beginning to write [9].
3- The third bullet point refers to cohesive devices. We are told that, at band 6, candidates
may make mistakes with cohesive devices, while at band 7 they are used well (even though
sometimes they may be over-used) [10]. A criticism of band 6 is that the cohesive devices
may be either ‘faulty’ or ‘mechanical’, therefore what ‘cohesive devices’ are and what the
terms ‘faulty’ and ‘mechanical’ mean, are the key to achievement of the goal. This links
very appropriately to questions candidates often ask about using common phrases that
some people see as too simple [9, 10].
A ‘cliché’ is a phrase that is seen or heard often and the term tells us that an idea is not very
original [11]. For example, ‘My wedding was the happiest day of my life’, but the only
people who need to worry about using clichés are professional writers, who are supposed
to write in an original and fresh way [1]. IELTS candidates at all do not need to worry
about entertaining the examiner, they just and merely need to communicate their ideas as
clearly as possible [10]. Phrases like ‘On the other hand’ are natural and accepted ways of
joining ideas together. Your examiner will have seen these phrases being used in a ‘faulty’
way (e.g. ‘Another hand’ or “On other hand’ or when it isn’t appropriate to use it), hence
seeing them used effectively will be rewarded. If one were building a wall, we would not
think that it is a ‘cliché’ to use bricks and mortar. What the examiner is looking for is
whether you choose the right bricks at the right time and whether you join them together
effectively and skillfully, so that your argument stands up [11].
4- The final bullet point in the band 6 description mentions ‘referencing’, which is another
way of joining ideas together. Referencing is when one refers back to a previous idea.
Candidates can do this either with pronouns or with synonyms. At band 7, this comes under
the idea of a cohesive device being used appropriately. At band 6, these may not always be
used clearly [9, 10]. These examples will illustrate the core concept [12]:
 >> Travel can be expensive and dangerous. Despite being expensive and dangerous, many
people still choose to travel. Because of them, the number of international flights rises
every year. <<
Instead of repeating ‘expensive and dangerous’ in the second sentence, it is better to refer
back to these with a synonym like this: Travel can be expensive and dangerous. Despite
these problems, many people still choose to travel. The pronoun ‘them’ in the third
sentence is referring back to ‘people’, but we need to refer back to the whole idea of ‘many
people travelling’ [12].

V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the “coherence and cohesion” criterion of the writing section of the IELTS test
was discussed with respect to the reference materials that IELTS cites. By guiding concentration
toward only the second task of the writing component, achieving band scores 6 and 7 in this
criterion was completely analyzed and the band descriptors were comprehensively decoded into
suggestions and practical advice for applicants of the general module of the test and candidates
applying for higher education through taking the academic module, respectively.
 REFERENCES
[1] P. Cullen, A. French, and V. Jakeman, The official Cambridge guide to IELTS for academic &
general training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
[2] S.-K. Tanskanen, Collaborating towards coherence: lexical cohesion in English discourse.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2006.
[3] V. J. Cook and D. Ryan, The Routledge handbook of the English writing system. London:
Routledge, 2016.
[4] R. V. Sanavi and M. Nemati, “The Effect of Six Different Corrective Feedback Strategies on
Iranian English Language Learners’ IELTS Writing Task 2,” SAGE Open, vol. 4, no. 2, p.
215824401453827, 2014.
[5] L. Kamelifar, “The Effect of Teaching Cohesive Devices on IELTS Writing Task 2 of Iranian
Foreign Language Learners,” Journal for the Study of English Linguistics, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 81, 2017.
[6] Cambridge advanced learners dictionary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
[7] M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan, Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1997.
[8] N. E. Enkvist, “Contrastive linguistics and text linguistics,” Contrastive Linguistics.
[9] D. Moyla, IELTS academic writing: important tips & high scoring sample answers! Lieu de
publication non disponible: Sanbrook Publishing, 2015.
[10] L. Hashemi and B. Thomas, IELTS trainer: six practice tests with answers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2016.
[11] M. Roche, IELTS writing: advanced masterclass (IELTS Tasks 1 & 2): band scores 7.0-8.5. Place
of publication not identified: IDM Business & Law, 2018.
[12] D. Moyla, IELTS academic writing: how to write 7+ answers for the IELTS exams (with high
scoring sample answers for each question type). Australia Sanbrook Publishing, 2017.

APPENDICES
TABLE I. WRITING TASK 2 BROAD DESCRIPTION
Academic Writing General Training Writing

Test takers respond to a point of view or Test takers write an essay in response to a point of view,
Task
argument or problem. They need to write 250 argument or problem. The essay can be fairly personal
Format
words in about 40 minutes. Responses to both in style.
tasks must be in a formal style.
 This task assesses the ability to present a clear, This task assesses the ability to follow English
Task relevant, well-organised argument, giving discursive writing conventions to organise and link
Focus evidence or examples to support ideas and use information coherently and cohesively and to use
language accurately. language accurately and appropriately.
Marking Criteria

Task 2 responses are assessed on:

Task response; Coherence and cohesion; Lexical resource; Grammatical range and accuracy

Performance Descriptors

Task response
In both IELTS Academic and IELTS General Training versions, Task 2 requires test takers to formulate and develop a
position in relation to a given prompt in the form of a question or statement. Ideas should be supported by evidence, and
examples may be drawn from the test takers’ own experience. Responses must be at least 250 words in length. Scripts
under the required minimum word limit will be penalised.
Coherence and cohesion
This assesses the overall clarity and fluency of the message: how the response organises and links information, ideas
and language. Coherence refers to the linking of ideas through logical sequencing. Cohesion refers to the varied and
appropriate use of cohesive devices (for example, logical connectors, pronouns and conjunctions) to assist in making
the conceptual and referential relationships between and within sentences clear.
Lexical resource
This criterion refers to the range of vocabulary used and its accuracy and appropriacy in terms of the specific task.
Grammatical range and accuracy
This assesses the range and accurate use of grammar, as manifested in their test takers’ writing at sentence level.

TABLE II. BAND DESCRIPTOR FOR COHERENCE AND COHESION

Band
Description
score
* uses cohesion in such a way that it attracts no attention
9
* skilfully manages paragraphing
* sequences information and ideas logically
8 * manages all aspects of cohesion well
* uses paragraphing sufficiently and appropriately
* logically organises information and ideas; there is clear progression throughout

* uses a range of cohesive devices appropriately although there may be some under-/over-use
7
* presents a clear central topic within each paragraph
* arranges information and ideas coherently and there is a clear overall progression
* uses cohesive devices effectively, but cohesion within and/or between sentences may be faulty or
mechanical
6
* may not always use referencing clearly or appropriately
* uses paragraphing, but not always logically
* presents information with some organisation but there may be a lack of overall progression
5 * makes inadequate, inaccurate or over-use of cohesive devices
 * may be repetitive because of lack of referencing and substitution
* may not write in paragraphs, or paragraphing may be Inadequate
* presents information and ideas but these are not arranged coherently and there is no clear progression in
the response

4 * uses some basic cohesive devices, but these may be inaccurate or repetitive

* may not write in paragraphs or their use may be confusing

* does not organise ideas logically

3 * may use a very limited range of cohesive devices, and those used may not indicate a logical relationship
between ideas
* has very little control of organisational features
2
* fails to communicate any message
1

TABLE III. COMPARISON OF COHERENCE AND COHESION BETWEEN BAND 6 AND BAND 7