Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2010 Higher School Certificate examinations, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses. This document should be read in conjunction with the relevant syllabus, the 2010 Higher School Certificate examinations, the marking guidelines and other support documents which have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning in English (Standard) and English (Advanced) courses. General comments Generally candidates responded well to the range of texts and questions. Most candidates found the provided quotes to be a solid platform from which to begin their response to the questions, although in weaker responses, candidates failed to move beyond the use of this quote which limited their discussion. Candidates need to be familiar with the Boards Glossary of Key Words which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as how?, why? or to what extent? may be asked, or verbs may be used which are not included in the glossary, such as design, translate or list.
d. In better responses, candidates examined elements of the text in order to interpret the text holistically. Explorations of the texts meaning were supported by apt references that revealed the complexity of the speakers attitude. In weaker responses, candidates dealt with the text on a more literal level and often misinterpreted the attitude of the speaker or failed to refer to it at all. e. In stronger responses, candidates analysed the distinctive perspectives provided in the texts and understood that ways could be conceptual. They avoided generalisations and effectively addressed all elements of the question and provided aptly chosen textual evidence in support. Weaker responses tended towards explanation and textual referencing was limited. Section II Question 2 Candidates presented responses in a variety of forms, though narrative was the dominant choice. In better responses, candidates used language appropriate to their chosen form of imaginative writing. They explored the challenges of belonging and not belonging with insight, complexity and/or subtlety. These responses displayed originality and artistry and the mechanics of language were applied skilfully. In sound responses, candidates tended to be more literal in their use of one of the quotations. They tended to be predictable, linear or clichd in their examination of the challenges of belonging and not belonging. In these responses, the mechanics of language was controlled and writing structure was appropriate to form. Weaker responses tended to lack structural direction, were simplistic and inconsistent in their exploration of the challenges of belonging and not belonging. These responses lacked credibility, with limited appropriateness to audience and/or purpose. Flawed mechanics of language were usually a feature of these responses. Section III General comments Candidates approaches to the question varied, with many considering the statement as an opportunity to discuss the impact of the positive and or negative impacts of relationships on belonging, while others chose to explore an individuals interaction with the natural world as having a significant impact on belonging. In stronger responses, candidates engaged in a perceptive manner with the view expressed in the statement, establishing an insightful thesis, which was sustained throughout the response through a discerning selection of textual detail and an astute analysis of both the prescribed text and the text of their own choosing. The skilful integration of the analysis of both texts into the conceptual framework of their response was a distinguishing feature of highly developed responses. These responses were also marked by clear and purposeful control of language, with a judicious use of related material.
Some candidates found it difficult to sustain their argument as their chosen related material offered them limited opportunity to develop a strong argument or detailed analysis to support their ideas on the nature of belonging. Sound responses engaged with the view expressed in the statement. Candidates used their knowledge to support their response, but did not develop the response or sustain their analysis in a rigorous manner. These responses tended to list rather than analyse textual details and features, and adopted a series of explanations. Many of these responses approached the question in a logical and structured way, but merely relied on an overview of texts and description as a means of discussion. Some of these responses were overloaded with textual analysis at the expense of a well-developed and coherent line of argument. Links between texts were evident, but remained undeveloped, and candidates did not sustain their conceptual discussion throughout the response. In weaker responses, candidates generally attempted to respond to the view expressed in the statement, but experienced some difficulty in using textual evidence or features to support a discussion of the texts. Candidates often resorted to storytelling with intermittent reference to, rather than explanation of, textual features. Weaker responses were often colloquial, conversational and segmented, demonstrating a varying control of language, and displaying an elementary knowledge of the concept and the texts studied. Some candidates established a simplistic thesis in their introduction but did not develop or sustain this throughout the response. These responses were often unbalanced in their treatment of the prescribed and related texts, most often being weaker in their analysis of their chosen text. Shakespeare
personal context in light of the question, they did not allow contextual considerations to dominate their discussion. For the most part, candidates focused on the social structures and interactions that limited the poets experience of belonging, but better responses counterbalanced this with a consideration of the enrichment that is found in the poets deep sense of connection to the natural world. While many stronger responses discussed two poems, the brevity of many of the prescribed poems allowed some candidates to discuss three poems to further their discussion, or to explore contrasting aspects of belonging in connection with the quotation. I had been hungry all the years, I gave myself to him and This is my letter to the world were most frequently discussed, yet many strong responses considered other poems. In weaker responses, candidates often discussed Dickinsons context but with little direct reference to the poems or the quotation. Many responses at this level struggled to demonstrate an understanding of the complexity of Dickinsons poetry, focusing instead on an explanation of the poets feelings of not belonging, but failing to relate it to interaction with others and the world around her. Poetic devices were often identified without considering their effect on the meaning. Many weaker responses ignored the quotation in the question.
Section I Module A: Comparative Study of Texts and Context General comments In better responses, candidates developed a thesis which addressed the question and demonstrated a strong conceptual understanding of the module and the elective. They embedded an evaluation of the relationship between text and context in the analysis of the texts. These responses demonstrated an understanding of the term values and also showed a discerning use of textual references. Weaker responses tended to make connections between texts through lengthy description and recount. They were explanatory and narrative rather than analytical. These responses did not demonstrate evaluative judgements and treatment of context was often superficial or absent. Textual references were often not well selected or integrated into the discussion of the two texts studied. Question 1 Exploring Connections Better responses recognised the significance of context in understanding the shift in values between the texts. The relationship between texts and contexts was evaluated, and textual reference was detailed and selected discerningly. A discriminating feature was a candidates ability to engage with the terms of the question through clear, concise arguments and shape a response accordingly. In weaker responses, candidates adopted a thematic approach to the question and confined the discussion to issues rather than values and made parallel connections between texts. Treatment of context was not integrated into the discussion and was treated in isolation. These responses often lacked appropriate textual detail and occasionally showed an unbalanced treatment of texts. Question 2 Texts in Time In better responses, candidates considered the key notion of individuals challenging established values and produced a shaped response that developed and sustained a thesis which genuinely addressed the question and which used a discerning selection of textual references. In weaker responses, candidates tended to identify some similarities between these texts, often with a limited understanding of the significance of these similarities. They often considered the key concept of established values of their time in a superficial or generalised way or ignored it. Treatment of context was not integrated into the discussion and was frequently a reference to the time of composition rather than an understanding of how context is reflected in the construction and reception of texts. They often relied on a few basic or inappropriate references to texts. Section II Module B: Critical Study of Texts General comments In stronger responses, candidates carefully considered arguments and thoughtfully selected, detailed textual references to support a perceptive thesis. Insightful responses demonstrated a strong sense of personal engagement which was developed through an evaluation of a variety of interpretations. Very few responses simply relied on interpretations of others and readings. Weaker responses tended to be descriptive and made limited reference to the language and ideas of the text. They lacked development and did not sustain a coherent and detailed
argument. These responses also reflected a limited understanding of the demands of the question.