Few characters in a school text produce as many half-formed essays as Inspector Goole. Students know he is important, they know he is not quite a normal police officer, and they are often unsure how to say more. A marker can tell within a paragraph whether the student has a real argument or only a set of labels.

The standard line is that the Inspector is Priestley's mouthpiece. That is true as far as it goes, but essays that stop there tend to sit in the middle bands. Stronger essays look at how the Inspector controls the pace of the evening, how he speaks compared with the Birlings, and what his sudden disappearance does to the audience.

Because the character is so open to interpretation, it is worth deciding in advance which readings you will reward. A supernatural figure, a moral conscience and a device for exposing hypocrisy can all be defended with evidence.

The guidance below helps you keep your marking consistent when students take different routes.

What good analysis includes

Good responses treat the Inspector as a dramatic device as well as a person. They mention how he arrives just after Birling's speech about self-interest, and how he uses photographs and questions to force each character to face the facts. They also notice that he refuses to be drawn by Birling's status.

• Notes the timing of his entrance and the irony it creates
• Analyzes his short, direct sentences against the Birlings' longer speeches
• Explains how he controls who speaks and when
• Considers the ambiguity of his identity as part of the play's effect
• Ties his final speech to the message Priestley wants the audience to take away

Handling different interpretations fairly

Some students argue he is a ghost or a prophet; others see him as an ordinary man with an extraordinary purpose. As long as the reading is supported by the text, it deserves credit. The marking risk is inconsistency, where one script is rewarded for a bold interpretation and another is marked down for the same move.

A useful test is whether the student quotes specific details, such as the name Goole, his knowledge of events before they happen, or his final warning about fire and blood and anguish, to back up the view.

Feedback that nudges without giving the answer

Try asking students what the audience is meant to feel when he leaves. That question produces better paragraphs than telling them to explore his role. It sends them to the structure of the play and to the impact of the ending.

Another good prompt is to ask why Priestley makes the Inspector so hard to argue with. Students who think about that tend to notice how the family's defenses collapse.

Scaling this across a class

When a whole set of essays covers the same character, tools like GraideMind can help by checking each script against your rubric and highlighting where the argument stays at the label stage. You get a first draft of feedback that points to specific paragraphs, which you can sharpen with your own knowledge of the class.

The aim is not to replace your judgment on how a bold reading should be rewarded. It is to make sure every student is measured on the same terms before you make that call.