Task Achievement:
The essay addresses both parts of the prompt—reasons for the interest in house history and methods of research—but the development of ideas could be more thorough. Some reasons (e.g., cultural pride, mysterious stories) are mentioned, but they lack depth and specific examples. The research methods (asking neighbors, online archives) are relevant but could be expanded with more detail or examples of reliable sources (e.g., local government records, historical societies). The conclusion is present but somewhat repetitive.
Coherence and Cohesion:
The essay has a logical structure, but transitions between ideas could be smoother. Some sentences are awkwardly phrased (e.g., "the home they accommodate," "former possessors"), which disrupts flow. Paragraphing is appropriate, but linking words or phrases (e.g., "Furthermore," "On the other hand") would improve cohesion. The conclusion abruptly combines ideas without synthesizing them effectively.
Lexical Resource:
Vocabulary is generally appropriate, but there are errors in word choice (e.g., "accommodate" instead of "live in," "possessors" instead of "owners") and collocations (e.g., "hands-on resources"). Some phrases are unnatural (e.g., "figuring out about past events"). More precise and varied vocabulary would strengthen the response.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy:
There are frequent grammatical errors, including article misuse ("a sense of pride," not "the sense of pride"), incorrect verb forms ("might there were a treasure"), and sentence fragments ("because if houses..."). Punctuation errors (e.g., missing commas, run-on sentences) also occur. More complex structures (e.g., conditional sentences, passive voice) would improve the score.
With these adjustments, the essay would better meet IELTS criteria for clarity, coherence, and accuracy.