ENGLISH A1 Overall grade boundaries - Wikispacesenglishesf.wikispaces.com/file/view/May+03+Exam+report.pdf · ENGLISH A1 Overall grade boundaries Higher Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2003

ENGLISH A1

Overall grade boundaries Higher Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 – 14 15 – 30 31 – 42 43 – 55 56 – 67 68 – 79 80 - 100 Standard Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 – 14 15 – 29 30 – 40 41 – 54 55 – 65 66 – 77 78 - 100 World Literature Component grade boundaries Higher Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 – 5 6 – 11 12 – 17 18 – 22 23 – 28 29 – 33 34 - 40 Standard Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 – 2 3 – 5 6 – 7 8 – 10 11 – 13 14 – 16 17 - 20 Higher Level More than a few examiners in this year’s examination session emphasized how important it is that teachers return to the Language A1 Guide to review and reclarify both the selection of texts and the production of assignments. Many problems could be avoided and many results could be improved by eliminating misinterpretations of the intent of this component. Smaller problems and deviations from the demands of the written task might also be remedied. In this vein, one paragraph in particular from the Language A1 Guide could surely be useful in steering students away from unproductive strategies in both assignments. Page 4 of the current subject guide reads as follows: “The Language A1 programme encourages students to see literary works as products of art and their authors as craftsmen whose methods of production can be analysed in a variety of ways and on a number of levels. This is achieved through emphasis placed on exploring the means used by different authors to convey their subjects in the works studied. It is further reinforced by the comparative framework emphasized for the study of these works in all parts of the programme.” (Italics inserted for this report).

Group 1 English A1 1 © IBO 2003


This said, almost every examiner observed that excellent work is being produced in all forms of either Assignment 1 or 2. In particular, examiners stressed that the “creative assignment,” 2(b) had the potential to elicit the extremes of performance, witty and effective imitations and responses to the work studied, and abysmal misconceptions and productions. There has been a significant increase in literary topics, addressing the “methods of production” and the “means used…to convey…subjects.” Students are writing about topics such as tone, irony, unreliable narrators, comparison of deliberate gaps in the narrative, various patterns of imagery and the like. Some papers are presented with great thought and care, effectively reflecting the good reading that seems to occur in almost every school. Yet, areas for improvement remain. Many of these could be alleviated or eliminated by careful reading of another document, sent out to schools by IBCA during the past academic year. The language A1 World Literature Teacher Support Material has invaluable material for improving the quality of work being submitted and some substantial aids to reducing erroneous and unproductive approaches. In addition it contains samples of student work with comments and marks. Assuming an acquaintance with the aforementioned documents, this report will focus on five areas most frequently recurring in the examiners’ reports on this component. The first and oft recurring issue is the selection of topics or titles. These problems are particularly evident in both Assignment 1 and Assignment 2(a). The ways for candidates to falter in this respect seem almost unlimited. “Nora, Meursault and the Allegory of Eden” is an example of one unpromising kind of task where the student forces the texts and what he may know about them into an uneasy and difficult alliance. “Sex in Latin American novels,” “The Absence of women in Greek literature,” “Existentialism in modern drama,” and the like are clearly too broad for the modest range of 1000-1500 words. “The Theme of Consequentialism [sic] of murder in The Outsider and Chronicle of a Death Foretold” is hampered from the outset by confused concepts. Closely allied to this sort of topic is the problem of unlikely, obvious or forced comparisons. Again these occur in Assignment 1 and Assignment 2(a). The other side of the coin in this area is the failure to pay attention to or to explore the link[s] between the two works. “Torvald and Macbeth are astonishingly similar.” Assignment 2(a) “Hamlet dies at the end, Nora doesn’t.” Assignment 2(a) “The mothers of Oedipus and Meursault” Assignment 1 In the search for topics, a task that deserves considerable practice, perhaps using works from other parts of the syllabus, candidates need to find material that lends itself to intelligent comparison. Solzhenitsyn and Kafka do indeed refer to food in their works, but the situations of their protagonists are significantly different. Madame Bovary and A Farewell to Arms are likely to pose considerable comparative problems. The comparative papers seem to have other problems as well. Many, many candidates simply re-narrate the events of the plays or novels, sprinkling their essays with ample quotations, seldom addressing any of the effects of context or style. Others simply provide a catalogue of similarities and differences in the two texts, with no address at all of why those features are significant. True, love and revenge are present in Medea and The Visit. What does it matter? How are they different in their presentation? What is the effect of the context? Where is the analysis? So often, paraphrase is offered in the guise of analysis. These are not book reports; they are intended to be exercises in



“exploring the means used by different authors.” Blinkered cultural views emerge in more than a few papers: “Medea and Hedda Gabler as victims of male oppression” and “a lack of employment.” Assignment 2(b) tends to be the next matter eliciting considerable comment from examiners. Here again, some careful reading of the Language A1 Guide offers some possible remedies for current and widespread problems. One of these is the assignment of “creative “tasks by teachers. “Write a poem entitled “Digging,” [after Heaney] which would take place directly after a passage in Book I of The Odyssey.” Another instance is the case where 42 out of 43 candidates all write a pastiche on One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. The creative assignment, the pastiche, needs to be chosen and conceived by individual students who are committed to investing the time needed to execute this challenging task. The most successful assignments in this category are those which have as their focus a close study of the original text, and an attempt to imitate both the concerns of the original and its style. These assignments should show that they have provoked further thought about the original, and illustrate assimilation of both intention and style observed in the text used, not to improve on a somehow “defective” product. It is unlikely that a conversation among Janey (Hurston), Esperanza (Cisneros) and Marie (Camus) in a women’s counseling centre will easily meet these goals, or that a boardgame based on Chronicle of a Death Foretold which simply uses the plot elements will do so either. On the other hand, the scenario for a play based on this same novel by Marquez might well achieve the goals described above and in fact, did so, whereas Antigone in “modern cool, hip English” has problems with its propriety and its significance. Finally, The Statement of Intent is proving useful and correct in only a limited number of cases. It comes first in the assignment, in order that the examiner may know what is being attempted. It is not simply a description of “this is what I am going to do” in two or three sentences which merely summarise the contents.. It needs to be viable and reasonable “I chose to approach the other themes in the contexts of time, self-worth and man’s attachment to life. . . . I also chose to emphasize the existentialist themes Bequeath approached and mimic his absurdist style” is not. Nor is the dramatizing of Metamorphosis by simply presenting the words of the original text in dialogue a task with any real point. Carelessness in writing and/or proofreading occupied a significant place in the examiners’ reports this year. There were many, many technical errors in these papers, in the face of all kinds of available assistance from computer programs. These are elements which count in general impressions and in the language descriptors. Finally, there are assorted elements which mar the work of the candidates. These are briefly cited below. • The word count has not risen to 1650 words. It remains 1000-1500 normatively. • Offering page numbers instead of the actual embedded relevant words from the original is not

useful. • Passages involved in key passage and commentary exercises must be attached, and of reasonable

length proportionate to the word limit of 1500 words. Sixteen pages of Madame Bovary is not a reasonable length for an exercise in Assignment 2(c).

• Footnotes and bibliographies are required, at least for the first footnote. It is crucial that the translation being used is indicated.

• The second assignment needs to be clearly labeled as (a), (b), or (c), and in the latter the particular exercise, for example, “commentary” should be clear.



• Cover sheets should be fully and carefully completed. Pages should be gathered together in a user-friendly way (string tags are especially practical). Plastic binders, covers, folders are redundant. Encasing each page of the assignment in a separate plastic holder is not user-friendly.

Standard Level General comments Many examiners were impressed by the knowledge and commitment shown by the best candidates, but both very good and very weak essays remained in the minority. Most essays fell into the satisfactory range as they failed to show sufficient spark to rise higher. Nearly all the examiners felt that one of the main weaknesses arose from an unwise choice of topic. Standards of writing have improved over the years and it is rare to find candidates who can neither structure their essays nor write with reasonable accuracy. It is also pleasing that far more candidates chose to write on literary rather than sociological topics, as happened in the past. The range of texts chosen is wide, yet old favourites keep appearing. One examiner noted that A Doll's House was one of the texts discussed in about half of the scripts he marked. Selection of aspect/topic/title The initial choice of topic is crucial to the success or failure of an essay. Topics which are too broad, too general, too narrow or too obvious lead to essays which lack a clear argument, drift into generalisation, and reach simplistic conclusions. Teachers are expected to discuss with each candidate his or her choice of topic but they are not supposed to dictate titles to their students. Examiners note that some teachers exert too much control, while others seem to have failed to give enough help and advice. Too much control results in a lack of variety and spontaneity while too little control leaves candidates floundering. In some schools, it seems, candidates are encouraged to write about characters. In other schools thematic choices are dominant, while elsewhere candidates concentrate on literary features. But it is sensible to give some training in all three approaches, especially when the school is entering a large number of candidates. Certain topics — such as trying to relate a writer's life to his or her work, or speculating about the reactions of readers or audiences — rarely succeed, for very few students of this age have sufficient knowledge or experience to deal with such matters effectively. One examiner noted that some schools seem to feel that topics should focus on aspects of competition or testing. "Is Euripedes a good writer?" "Who is the better mother: Medea or Nora?" This approach is possible, but such questions need to be answered in terms of the texts, not in terms of the candidate's own personal prejudices. Essays on topics which are reduced to a single word — such as “Symbolism” — usually lack analysis and a clear argument. A clear focus on the use made by the author of such a device as symbolism is essential. At the opposite end of the scale, some candidates present their topics in titles which are convoluted, abstract, or pretentious. If the title is unclear it is likely that the essay too will become cloudy and unfocussed. Candidates tend to overlook minor characters; as a result, essay after essay compares only the protagonists of two works, leaving unmined a much wider range of topics. It is also common for candidates to discuss characters as if they were real people rather than creatures that are manipulated by authors for their own narrative purposes.



Although essays on literary techniques are to be encouraged it is not enough merely to list examples of that technique; examples need to be analysed and related to the texts as a whole. Indeed, a descriptive approach rather than an analytical approach is a common fault in many essays. Some topics are very suitable for one of the chosen works but not for the other. Candidates should avoid attempting to interpret a text in ways that go completely against the grain of that work; for example, to discuss Oedipus Rex as if it were about the search for happiness does not show any real understanding of the text. Students should consider the whole text in relation to their topics. Where a given title suggests a comparative approach, candidates should be aware that not only similarities but also contrasts between the texts should be noted and analysed. Too many essays concentrate exclusively on similarities; as a result two works which are manifestly very different, may be judged as being alike. Antigone and A Doll's House both present protagonists strong enough to make their own moral decisions, but the cultural backgrounds and the themes of these works are utterly different. Knowledge and Understanding This is an area where most candidates show evidence of having been well-taught; very few candidates lack all knowledge of their texts. Some rely too heavily on brief summaries of plot, and fail to include essential supporting evidence; such detailed evidence is the best indication that they really know the works they are discussing. Levels of understanding depend on the abilities of the candidates. Some works are too complex or abstruse for weaker candidates, who tend to oversimplify their interpretations. This results in works of considerable subtlety being reduced to a series of banal platitudes; for instance, “Emma Bovary is a work about the dangers of being selfish.” Despite these failures, most examiners comment positively on the levels of comprehension and involvement shown by candidates. When the works they are discussing originate from very different backgrounds or eras, candidates are not always aware of the fact. This is particularly noticeable in essays about the role of women. Despite the assertions of many candidates, women have not been treated badly in all societies at all times. Certain basic emotions can be found in humans in all societies: fear, love, jealousy, desire for revenge, grief and so on, but how societies react towards them or how they try to control them varies from time to time and from place to place. Presentation Although it is rare to find candidates who have not been taught how to construct a comparative essay, there is no doubt that many need to have much more practice in writing such essays. The weakest essays consist of an introduction, a discussion of one text, a discussion of a second text, and then a conclusion. Only in the introduction and the conclusion is any significant attempt made to compare the two works. This does not mean that texts should always be discussed alternately, since some topics do not readily lend themselves to such an organisation, but there should be a constant awareness of similarities and differences throughout the essay; effective linking and transitions between paragraphs enable essays to achieve coherence and logical development. In some schools, candidates have been encouraged to write lengthy general introductions. This is not a good idea; a 1500 word length does not allow space for material that does not directly contribute to the argument of the essay. What is required in a good essay is a clear argument supported by detailed textual evidence. For the same reason, essays which are too short are unlikely to score highly. Candidates must be taught how to integrate quotations into their essays. A quotation needs both a context and an explanation. If it stands on its own it proves very little.



Use of Language Most candidates write with reasonable accuracy and fluency. It is obvious that some candidates have had enough tuition and practice in writing in a complex and sophisticated style to enable them to score well under criteria C and D. This is one of the most valuable skills they can acquire, not just for their exams but also for their future lives. But developing effective writing skills takes time and candidates who write their world literature assignments in their second year have an advantage over those who write them at the end of the first year. All candidates can, however, proofread their own work. It is amazing how many do not do this. Almost every examiner complains about silly errors that could easily have been rectified before the essay was handed in. Choice and teaching of Texts Apart from choosing literary works that are suitable for 17-19 year-olds, that give insights into different ways of thinking and behaving, and that have a balance both of short and long and simple and more complex texts, supervisors need to consider the range of topics their choice of works will allow for. This does not matter so much if there are only a few candidates, but once the numbers go beyond about fifteen it may be impossible for every candidate to arrive at a completely different topic. These difficulties will be all the greater if all three works are taught under a single narrow theme, as was the case in the previous course. It is wise to encourage candidates to explore all aspects of each work. Not all the teaching need be done directly by the teacher; students can carry out their own investigations into the texts and report their findings back to the class. The more input students contribute, the more likely they are to arrive at a personal approach to their topic. Key points

• The scope and wording of the topic is vital for the success of the assignment. • Candidates should actively participate in learning about their texts and in writing about them. • Good writing skills are vital for success in exams.



Internal Assessment Component grade boundaries Higher Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 – 5 6 – 10 11 – 13 14 – 17 18 – 21 22 – 25 26 - 30 Standard Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 – 4 5 – 8 9 – 12 13 – 16 17 – 19 20 – 23 24 - 30 The range and suitability of the work submitted Passages from Shakespeare retain their domination over a dozen plays in evidence, Hamlet and Macbeth struggling for the crown. What not all candidates see with a Shakespeare extract is that a threefold awareness is inevitably needed to ensure that not just context and content is covered but also the poetic and the dramatic, an awareness of who and what is being seen and/or heard on stage – the frightful knocking is equally as frightening and horrifying as the idea of the green sea turning red. It is encouraging that references are being made to performance(s) and that increasingly candidates are recognising that it is the response of an audience to what has happened, is happening, or is just about to happen (or not in the case of Hamlet) that needs to be considered and not simply “What is it you read?” Poetry allows well-honed or drilled skills and critical terminology to be brought into play. The range of poets remains quite constant – November session schools seem more adventurous in their choices. Extracts have in general been well-chosen but in such cases it should be expected that the part be as satisfactorily placed within the surrounding poem as well as within the work(s). Teachers should be aware that some candidates may not be able to sustain a commentary of reasonable duration on too short a poem. Prose, whether fiction or non-fiction, worked well this session when candidates understood that the particular extract needs to be examined as closely as poetry, and in terms of technique, not content alone. Essays and non-fiction works need as active a critical vocabulary, as great an awareness of technique and perhaps a greater awareness of small movement or moment within a surrounding structure or argument. Humour, as ever seems the case, whether E B White or some of the more mischievous moments in Jane Austen, is likely to fall flat on its face; irony, in all but the best, seems to be spotted, noted or checked off a list rather than appreciated, enjoyed and shared. Guiding Questions A pair of really nice questions stood out as enabling and well-suited to the task, “How does *** involve the reader’s thoughts and feelings in this passage?” coupled with “In what ways is this a significant moment in the novel?” The first reminds the candidate that there is a creative force, Hardy in the original instance, behind the words, that readers are in an active partnership with any writer, and that focus is needed in the commentary on literary effects and how they are achieved. The second question usefully enables a range of possible contexts to be considered.



Some teachers may rightly say that these are generic questions and prefer to offer something more extract-specific. The guiding questions, not more than two in number, must not insist however upon a particular reading of the text. One school’s guiding questions were preceded by this advice which states exactly their role and function, “In your examination of this passage you may choose, though you are by no means obligated, to consider the following guiding questions”. The register and syntax alone carry a useful reminder on the need for language choice, tone, sentence structure. Guiding questions should always lead the candidate into a consideration of the important central features and literary qualities of the extract or poem. The reverse is sadly the case with one of this session’s questions, “How is this poem autobiographical?” – which does not assist students to explore John Keats’ Ode To A Nightingale. Subsequent Questions Teachers must leave at least 3 minutes for subsequent questions, even if this means stopping the commentary. (A clock or a pre-arranged signal may be less disturbing.) While there is no necessity to have every individual oral commentary reach precisely the maximum 15 minutes, too many teachers at SL are ending orals at ten or twelve minutes, even when it is likely that, with careful questioning, the candidates might have shown they had more to say about the extracts. Appropriate subsequent questions are those that neither lead the candidate away from the text nor focus on isolated details; they are exploratory, rather than didactic, in nature. Good questions help the candidate to treat previously overlooked points, and to draw together previous observations. The best subsequent questions suggest an initial response by the teacher to the commentary just heard, and these become the basis of a real dialogue, however brief, on the extract and the student’s insights into and responses to it. Marking Increasingly, teachers are giving realistic marks to their students for criterion D (Language) and, to a lesser extent, criterion A (Knowledge and Understanding). The greatest misjudgements are to be found in B (Interpretation and Personal Response) and C (Presentation). Both criteria require very competent and thorough fulfilment for high marks. If at all possible, teachers should mark the individual oral commentary by listening to the recording afterwards, rather than while trying simultaneously to conduct the examination, formulate or select subsequent questions, and listen attentively to students’ answers. Teachers need to separate the performance from the candidate and from that candidate’s other work, and to consider very carefully what is meant by the criteria and how to measure what they have heard against them. In schools where samples for candidates at the same level (HL or SL) include oral commentaries conducted and marked by more than one teacher, it is important that these teachers standardise their approaches to the conduct of the oral commentary. As only one moderation factor is established for each school’s candidates, it is crucial, in the interest of fairness to the students, that teachers in this situation standardise their marking of the samples they submit listening to the tapes together and discussing the reasons for their marks. Schools should allocate additional time to make this possible, in the same way as other internal assessment procedures requiring the collaborative efforts of teachers, such as the Group 4 Project, are allocated time.



Comments on performance by criterion Criterion A: Knowledge and Understanding of Extract or Work(s) While many candidates have shown a good general knowledge of text content, too often significant details are overlooked, particularly in prose passages and in extracts from Shakespeare plays, or a general knowledge of the work as a whole takes the place of a more specific knowledge of the extract’s contents. Candidates are expected to “situate the extract” in a meaningful way. While the relative location within a larger work is important (though no credit at all can be given for this if the candidate is provided with act and scene numbers in the case of Shakespeare plays), physical location is not sufficient context in itself. Candidates ought to be able to make context meaningful by discussing why the extract is important in terms of, for example, character, plot, or thematic development: what is going to happen or change subsequently in the work as a result of thoughts, events or words in the extract? What has happened just previously to make this possible? Not only dramatic, but also psychological, emotional, and intellectual developments may be crucial. Parallel or contrasting scenes, speeches, themes, images, etc. in the same or even a related work by the same author may also help to provide a meaningful context, though such points need to be made succinctly, as the extract itself should always remain central. In the case of poetry extracts, the same points need to be addressed. More often, however, complete poems are offered; these have provided a particular challenge for students seeking to establish a proper context. Candidates successful in this area make succinct and relevant links to other works by the same or another poet, or identify thematic concerns or devices typically employed by the poet or poets studied. At the other extreme are students who offer largely irrelevant detail as context. Plath’s poems continue, sadly, to be treated as perversely obscure verse autobiography. One student’s idea of context was identifying which suicide attempt preceded the composition of ‘Tulips’. Others waste precious minutes discoursing at length on the complete text or even the entire body of the author’s work. Only the strongest candidates have shown themselves able to discuss the extracts as literary experiences, bringing in the rest of the work or related works to enrich their points about the text before them. Criterion B: Interpretation and Personal Response Most moderators agreed that the greatest problems are to be found in the area of Interpretation and Personal Response; all considered this an area of difficulty. Detailed analysis remains beyond the demonstrated capacity of most candidates. Moderators found little serious interpretation either of what is said, or how it is said, in the commentaries. The structure of the poem or passage, and the interplay of elements within it, are rarely discussed. Only a few candidates could demonstrate critical thinking or originality in response to the extract. Increasingly popular amongst weaker candidates is the mechanical listing of devices, with little or no examination of their effects, or of how these work to manifest the writer’s purpose. Students are more apt to identify topics in the extract, rather than the positions taken by the speaker or narrative voice in relation to these topics; or character interaction, rather than the effect of that interaction on the reader or audience, and how that effect is achieved. (They can see that Hamlet likes Horatio, but they cannot usually identify what in either Hamlet’s or Horatio’s words reveals that affection, nor how we are made to care that Hamlet feels as he does about his friend.)



Too often little or nothing is said about speaker, narrative voice, or authorial positioning in any context, nor is there often any recognition that the voice is as much a part of the artifice as is figurative language or prosody. Thus, for example, After Apple Picking becomes merely a metaphor for death; the literal experience conveyed by the poem, the manner in which the speaker chooses to recall and reflect upon the day’s apple picking, and how beautifully and powerfully this is conveyed, are never considered. That reading is for many students a chore, that interpretation and understanding of what is read a burdensome effort, is all too clearly conveyed by the absence, in so many commentaries, of the appreciation and engagement, the enthusiasm to scour the extract for those telling details needed for a convincing, personal response. Criterion C: Presentation As one moderator put it, if candidates would only take the trouble to start out with a clearly established sense of direction, then often sheer thoroughness will carry them the rest of the way. It is crucial that the candidate have something to say about the extract; otherwise any significant details identified and commented upon will not clearly contribute to an overall reading of the extract. With poetry, and increasingly in commentaries on essays and non-fiction, a line-by-line paraphrase with comments typically takes the place of organisation around a central argument or conceptual thread, so that no idea or experience either initiates the commentary or emerges in the course of it that can be seen to give coherence to the extract. Because a linear approach to commentary will always become serendipitous, emphasising the known over the unknown in an extract, seizing upon random particulars, say the individual ‘conceits’ in a Donne poem, matched by the inevitably noticeable neglect or omission of ‘the difficult’ stanza, can prevent any sense emerging of argument, the ‘witty’ tactics, or development within the extract. A good commentary will always leave the listener with a sense of purposeful or organic direction, a clear and persuasive consideration or prioritising of the possibilities afforded by the passage. Time management is a component of the structure. The linear presentation which leaves a large portion unexplored through lack of time or which, as happens more often than should be the case, ends with no more to say after some four or five minutes, cannot expect for this criterion at least to reach the higher range of marks. Where presentation skills have been taught and are in place, a cohesive structure whose focus clearly reflects the central concerns and importance of the passage may often secure a higher mark here than awarded elsewhere. Teachers often wonder about the word persuasive in this criterion. Suffice it to say that a communicable sense of ‘joy’, enthusiasm and positive engagement with the extract’s details on whatever level will often go further to convince and persuade than the often obvious disaffection of some fragmentary, mechanical and burdensome efforts. Criterion D: Use of Language Most candidates demonstrated a control of language adequate for the commentary exercise. Non-native speakers of English, of whom there are a great many at standard level, are not at any intrinsic disadvantage, provided their mastery of English has genuinely reached the level necessary for them to perform the verbal tasks required of them in this course. Indeed amongst the best performances overall at both levels are those whose first language is not English but who have mastered precision in diction and sentence construction together with a wide and active vocabulary which enables conciseness when sophisticated issues of interpretation and literary technique are being presented.



While some knowledge of technical language is helpful, if not absolutely essential, to a successful commentary, the mere mention of literary terms and devices if unconnected to appropriate examples does not impress or convince, nor does the use of pretentious language masquerading as knowledge. However much a degree of re-assuring informality may be welcome in putting a candidate at ease, the fifteen minutes of the commentary are an interchange about fairly sophisticated issues, and therefore require a choice of appropriate register and precision in diction and sentence construction. Students who lapse into casual, as opposed to informal, speech patterns, not only risk producing meaningless utterances (“Jane Austen was pretty brilliant, y’know, considering what she did”), but they undermine any claims they may have to a measure of authority on their subject. Recommendations Broadly speaking, there is more evidence that students know the works well, than there is that they know well how to talk effectively about the works, or extracts from them. The practice of oral commentary should form an integral part of class work throughout the course, and teachers should encourage students to develop a structural approach in their commentaries, as they are likely to do for their essays, that can readily be adapted to the requirements of any passage. Teachers may move slowly toward the individual oral commentary format, which for many students is not easy to master at first. An emphasis on direct engagement with details of the text, rather than broad generalisations about the work, should be encouraged throughout language A1 studies, and students need to understand that a personal but detailed engagement with the text is always a necessity for the good critical reader. Teachers should not encourage students to master and repeat set ideas about a text, but rather guide them toward developing their own ideas. If early in this process teachers were to do an individual oral commentary of their own for their students – or at the very least, sketch one out on paper – this might help students to see what realistically can be accomplished in ten or twelve minutes. Anything that can be done should be done to help students feel, and demonstrate by what they do, that the commentary is a potentially interesting process of discovery, a consolidation and testing out of ideas, a renewal and intensification of engagement with an already familiar text. For all this to succeed, it is imperative that schools recognise the necessity of providing facilities appropriate for what is an integral part of the language A1 assessment. Adequate recording equipment – that records both candidate and teacher without the need for noisy exchanges or re-positioning of the single directional microphone – is vital. The location for the individual oral commentary needs to be a space secure from noise, interruptions or distractions of any kind. Moderators reported much extraneous noise this year: loudly happy school children at recess, bells, class changes, public address announcements, people straying into or attempting to rebuild the examination room, telephones mobile or otherwise. One teacher had to apologise for a brief pause while the deafening dustcart’s weekly visit took place!



Paper 1 Component grade boundaries Higher Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 – 3 4 – 7 8 – 10 11 – 13 14 – 16 17 – 19 20 – 25 Standard Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 – 4 5 – 8 9 – 10 11 – 13 14 – 16 17 – 19 20 - 25 Higher Level General Comments Teachers reacted to the examination paper quite positively. While many felt that the prose passage was a better option than the poem, most of those who wrote comments felt that the choices represented a kind of middle ground, offering pieces which would enable the good students to do well while not intimidating the average students. Indeed, the passages elicited a range of responses which demonstrated, at the high end, mastery of the techniques of commentary, and, at other levels, the difficulties that students have with the task. Many more examiners than in the past noted the students’ positive engagement with the texts. In general, students had more difficulty with the poem. In treating the prose passage, weaker candidates were able at least to see what Charley was doing, while in treating the poem, they were uncertain about the very nature of the night wind. Areas of Difficulty Interpretation In both prose and poem commentaries, many students believe that it is necessary to find a hidden or a higher meaning. This leads them to present readings which cannot be supported except by ignoring or distorting the evidence of the texts. Rather than let an interpretation arise from an analysis of the text, such approaches typically begin with a broad claim about the nature of war or death or night, which then traps the commentary into serving the claim. Literary Techniques The ideal commentary treats literary techniques as inseparable from meaning. Two major difficulties appear in many students’ papers. The first is one of approach: the students hunt for and list techniques while offering little or no examination of the effects of these techniques. The second is evidence of a lack of understanding of the very terms for which they are seeking examples. (Tone, theme, imagery were the most widely and wobblingly conceived.) Examiners noted again and again that treatment of devices seemed forced, rather than an integral part of detailed analysis.



Organization The commentaries were in most cases structured around a central argument, and thus Presentation was considered one of the strengths of most papers. Nevertheless, although the case being argued was clear, many students seemed unaware of the concept of the paragraph, and how to use it. Support As the statements a student makes need to be supported by the text, quoting the text is crucial. More examiners than ever before noted that candidates had difficulty integrating direct quotations. Students either failed to use quotation marks or only referred to line numbers. Others quoted large sections to no purpose. Prose In the words of a senior examiner, “The very distinctive nature of the writing and of the situation was almost impossible to ignore”. Green’s presentation of Charley’s journey to the church and the cemetery made it possible for many students to write sensitively about the way Charley sees things, the way the war is still present for him, the way he has been wounded. Green’s interweaving of Rose and the roses, of life and death, were also focused upon. While some candidates wanted to discuss the horrors of war or the sorrow of lost love more than they wanted to discuss the actual text, most found the passage so full that they had plenty to treat without going too far outside it. Despite the effort expended on finding literary features, remarkably few candidates noted the oddity of some of the phrasing, the difference in lengths of paragraphs, or even the role of the narrative voice. The repetition of roses and the varied ways they are described allowed many students to focus on some detail. Students had more difficulty treating Charley’s relationship with Rose. Perhaps the denseness of the text and their careful treatment of it made it hard for them to give the final paragraph equal consideration. Many students wrote well about the way this passage worked as the opening of a novel. However, an equal number treated it as a self-contained unit. This created problems for them and points up the importance of balancing a treatment of the structure of a given extract with an understanding of its role in a longer work. Poem Fewer students chose to write on the poem, and more had difficulty once they made this choice. While examiners complained about over-interpretation in commentaries on both texts, the poem led to far more of this. It often seemed as if, once a student decided the speaker was really talking about Death or Satan or the Soul or Environmental Concerns, any consideration of the full poem was left behind in pursuit of the lines that fit the chosen interpretation. That said, many students wrote well about the excitement of the wind and the speaker’s changing relationship to it. A disconcerting number failed to treat the poem as a poem. They found alliteration or an image, but did not look at the stanza divisions, enjambment, or sound, for once they established the poem was not in iambic pentameter, they considered the necessary work on the poem as poem to be done. While many wrote well about specific images, and others tried to deal with “empire / in exodus, a deliverance” and “bloodrun”, many ignored these details altogether. Thus, again, the search for literary features seems to be leading candidates in the wrong directions. A disheartening number of candidates simply assumed Dewdney was the speaker.



Recommendations

• While the focus on literary features has made the students aware of their presence, more work needs to be done on showing how those features develop meaning.

• Students should continue to try to strike a balance between a purely literal reading and over-interpretation. Perhaps one way would be to stress what an element means in the text rather than what an element MEANS.

• One senior examiner suggested that weaker students might have better success focusing their commentaries on how a text develops rather than on literary features.

• If commentary (or close attention to texts) were a daily activity, candidates might begin to see it as a way of reading, and be more comfortable dealing with the words in front of them during an examination.

Standard Level General comments Overall the standard of answers on the English A1 SL Paper 1 reflected a good spread of ability from highly perceptive to average. Responses to both the prose and the poem were satisfactory on the whole but, overall, there were fewer excellent papers than in previous years. Areas of Difficulty Generally, both teachers and examiners felt that the paper was of a similar standard to last year’s, with an appropriate level of difficulty. The selected passages were felt to be readily accessible and offered the students the opportunity to demonstrate their critical skills. Many teachers commented that they appreciated the texts’ “cultural geographic diversity”. There were, however, areas that caused problems. These were: Interpretation and analysis of textual detail Most candidates were able to give an adequate interpretation of a text based on fair understanding, supported by appropriate references. In some scripts, however, the entire commentary was based on a vague theoretical interpretation of the prose passage or, more often, the poem, which bore little or no relation to the piece under discussion. As one examiner commented: ‘they seize upon an issue and run with it. It is then sometimes nigh impossible to present a balanced response.’ For some, it appeared that no statement was to be taken at face value. Too many candidates looked for deeper implications before they thoroughly explored the obvious meaning of the poem. Analysis of literary features Most candidates showed a clear awareness of technique and style. Certainly, when commenting upon a poem, one would expect a student to mention literary features, though admittedly, in the prose passage this can be more difficult. The very best showed a level of literary skill that was most impressive. Others tended to analyse literary features without recognizing the overall meaning of the piece. Analysis of punctuation was sometimes given undue emphasis, while meaning was overlooked. This aspect of a commentary should not be regarded as a mere naming of parts; what examiners are looking for is an appreciation of the effects of the chosen features. In the best scripts there were carefully chosen examples that were appropriately integrated into the body of the commentary; in the weaker answers, too many long quotations that had been carefully copied out but not analysed.



The guiding questions All too often weaker candidates ignored the well focused support given to them in the shape of the helpful guiding questions. Their answers were therefore generally unbalanced with a tendency to paraphrase. Introductions tend to be more focused on the whole; those who began with a clear summary of the prose or poem, or with a central thesis, tended to write the strongest work. However, conclusions are generally less effective, tending to repetition; they should be much more than a mere restatement of the arguments already presented – not merely an ending, but a judgment about the passage or poem, drawing together the threads of the preceding argument.

Areas of strength

• Candidates clearly enjoyed and appreciated the text they chose; there were many who commented that they also identified personally with the persona, who was living far from the country she loved; most students that wrote about the poem also appreciated the romance of the sunset walk on an empty beach.

• An ability to approach the task of writing a commentary. There was clear evidence of the ability to write well and structure answers within the all too brief time allotted for the examination.

• An ability to recognize a range of literary devices and to comment upon their effects. Candidates were well furnished with a range of terminology appropriate to literary criticism. Most could identify literary features but the ‘shopping list’ approach rarely bears fruit.

Prose passage

A roughly equal number of candidates chose question (a) and (b). ‘Most candidates offered an informed response based upon a coherent reading’ in the words of one examiner. Most teachers felt the piece ‘The Idea Of Perfection’ was a fair choice. Interestingly, some thought the prose was more difficult, while others saw it was easier than the poem. Generally, though, they felt the level of difficulty was equal for both. Difficulties

• Answers were often too long and consequently students did not finish their commentaries. There was a wealth of material – some tried to organize themselves by making a plan; usually this too was over-complex and took too long.

• Often, mistakes arose in understanding. Not many candidates saw that the woman had deliberately come to see the bridge. Her ‘bark’ was mistaken for the dog’s and she was frequently seen as a young girl or teenager because of her adventurous nature. She was seen by some as childishly immature because she was laughing at the hanging rock, and because she trespassed onto the farmer’s land. Few understood the word ‘rivulet’ and thought it was a town with buildings that ‘glinted’ metallically. They also thought the river was in a forest; because of the word ‘wood’.

• Only the most perceptive saw the link between pairs: the ornamental quality of the surroundings: cows, birds, bridge posts etc.

• Many students were misled by the title of the novel from which the passage had been taken, the Idea of Perfection, and tried to weave this theme into everything else they mentioned about the extract. This led to much convoluted logic and irrelevant assertions, unfortunately. Sometimes the title is a helpful clue students tend to overlook, but this time it was a red herring for most who saw it, except for the few who had appreciated the deeper underlying artistic themes of the passage.

• Too much focus was placed on the first part of the extract, so that discussion of the later, more significant passage, on the bridge itself, was diminished. Candidates quickly ran out of time. Sometimes it appears that the candidate had not read the entire extract through before beginning to write, and this is always a mistake. Careful reading is essential because one



slight misreading can ‘throw’ the interpretation of the whole. This led to weak scores on understanding and interpretation of the text, since ideas were unsupported by adequate and appropriately detailed references to the whole passage.

• Candidates often confused the author with the character, although some excellent scripts did pick up the distinction between what she saw and what the author made her see.

Strengths

• the symbolism of the bridge was seen by most. Analysis was generally relevant and quite well developed.

• Setting was noticed by some, who also developed the city folk/rural life contrast effectively. • A willingness to identify and explore literary features. • Attention to the structure of the commentary.

Poem About half of all candidates chose to write about the poem: ‘Otherwise’ by Cilla McQueen. The central theme seemed to appeal to the students and interpretations were generally relevant; some saw this as a cultural division as well as a geographical one.

Difficulties

• Many did not pick up the fact that two hemispheres were involved here. The word ‘waxes’ was not understood by many and the southern hemispherical differences were not understood by some.

• A number of candidates commented on the absence of punctuation, devoting an inordinate amount of attention to the two capital letters that were seen.

• Poetic techniques were sometimes ignored and the analysis seemed more appropriate for a piece of prose.

• A very few missed the fact that two people were involved.

Strengths • When understood, the poem produced some excellent commentaries. • Most candidates commented well on the form of the poem. Much of the analysis of poetic

technique demonstrated high levels of understanding and superb teaching. • The poet’s tone was well understood. • The best candidates picked up the reference to ‘the same Pacific ocean’ in the last line and

developed this theme positively.

Recommendations The standard of the answers was on the whole very good and both teachers and candidates should be congratulated for their thorough preparation. Some areas where improvements may still be made are: • Clearly, time is a factor in this, and practice in writing within the time frame is essential.

Students need practice in allocating reading time, planning their answers and writing timed essays.

• When reading a passage or poem candidates should read the chosen piece a minimum of two times before starting to write.

• Some teachers could rethink the checklist approach to naming literary features; it is rarely the signal of an excellent essay. Greater emphasis should be placed by candidates on the effect of the feature on the meaning of the passage. Mere naming of features will not gain high marks with examiners.

• More time could be devoted to discussing narrative voice.



• Although already clearly a feature of good classroom teaching, it is worth reiterating the point that a good commentary is like a piece of detective work: support must be presented to accompany each assertion; ideally candidates should build their case by making a deduction, providing a short, apt piece of evidence from the text and then integrating this point into the logical whole.

• Perhaps more time could be spent on discussing the features of a good conclusion to a commentary.

Paper 2 Component grade boundaries Higher Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 – 4 5 – 8 9 – 11 12 – 14 15 – 16 17 – 19 20 - 25 Standard Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 – 4 5 – 8 9 – 11 12 – 15 16 – 17 18 – 19 20 - 25 Higher Level There is no question that some schools are teaching the texts very successfully, as well as providing ample instruction and practice that will enable their candidates to succeed in the answering of questions in paper two. This report surveys the strengths and weaknesses displayed in performance, as reported by examiners, as well as the recommendations for improvement that they most commonly reiterate. The performance of candidates with individual questions completes the report. Strengths of candidates in this component In all but a few noticeable cases, candidates appear to have read, enjoyed and reviewed their texts. However, examiners reading numerous essays from the same school where only two texts are discussed out of the four designated for part three expressed concerns about the coverage of the syllabus. Such patterns have been noted; schools must be sure that what they declare as the syllabus is actually studied. Understanding of events and characters seems to be a common strength in this candidate pool; more sophisticated aspects of the texts such as structure, tone, mood and narrative techniques, are well handled by many of the candidates, but not all. In many cases, candidates are able to invoke detail, and often to use it well. One of the rarest strengths is the ability shown by candidates to rethink what they know in terms of the question before them, rather than to deliver what they have learned from the teacher about the texts. A fair number of candidates perform strongly in criteria D and E, even when they fall below the norm in the first three criteria.



Weaknesses of candidates in this component At the top of the examiners’ wish list of situations remedied for the next set of scripts in paper two are the three following elements:

• Attention to the demands of Descriptor C, on the use and appreciation of literary features by the writers. Weaknesses in this area are several: a failure to handle competently the names of literary techniques, but also to go beyond pointing at or identifying them. Seeing such features as manifestations of authorial choice seems to elude a good many candidates (and teachers?) Finally, in this regard, the ability to express what happens as a consequence of these choices in terms of the effect on the literary piece.

• The failure to cite details from the texts to support views. This weakness ranges from essays which are replete with assertions but thin in support from judiciously selected detail to those where whole groups of candidates use the same two or three texts references, sometimes with little real relation to the point being made. Other weaknesses occur when students have a good range of textual evidence, but little idea of how to deploy it effectively to answer a question.

• One of the recurring failures is the one which involves reading the question superficially, launching into an answer with insufficient thought and planning, or re-formulating the question to suit what has been learned or used in a “practice” essay.

Recommendations for improved practice

• Creating a classroom environment where students are encouraged to arrive at their own perceptions about the text, to test them in discussion, and to practice articulating them in writing. Many essays from individual centres, examiners noted, deliver versions of notes, the “party line,” or the teacher’s ideas, whether it be on “the land of likeness/unlikeness, “authorial subversion,” or “stream of consciousness.”

• Since many candidates are choosing the “General Questions on Literature,” (and these attempt to cover many genres and many syllabuses), candidates must be made aware that every question on paper two expects them to consider the “how” of the texts, the authorial choices, the techniques and the effects, whether or not these aspects are explicitly mentioned in the question.

• Practice in reading questions, rewriting them, and answering them is crucial to success in this component. Review and evolution are needed in constructing intelligent and relevant introductions and conclusions which are more than filler. Arguments are demanded; candidates need practice in constructing a larger plan and in the use of the paragraph, in which some are woefully incompetent.

• Teaching the difference between plot summary or description and “analysis” of elements of a text is absolutely necessary in order for candidates to succeed in the first two descriptors.

Candidates’ performance in particular questions Drama 1(a) Examiners saw a range of responses, many of them quite good. Viewing a performance often advantaged candidates in this question, but it should be noted that classroom work with performance can often fill in where productions cannot be viewed. Some candidates had little sense of large as well as small “visual actions” and their potential, and often turned to stage directions. Miller, Williams, and Beckett were oft used, the former to confirm the prompt, the latter to question it. Speech tended to be neglected, but some candidates successfully incorporated that consideration.



1(b) The most successful candidates defined both plot and setting for their discussion, but the “relationship” of the two was not successfully addressed very often. Setting as the time and location of the action, or physical set was acceptable as a way of treating the topic; often plot became conflated with theme. In general, lack of precision undermined success for quite a number, but examiners felt there were many answers falling into the “acceptable to good” category. Poetry 2(a) and 2(b) Poetry as a genre for part 3 is still not embraced by many centres, although the entries are growing. Of the two questions, 2(a) was the unmistakable favourite, with varying results. Weaker candidates failed to deliver specific references to support their views, and the play of the surprising or shocking against the familiar proved quite challenging for candidates in some centres. One large centre produced some good papers on 2(a); it was evident that excellent training in poetry had been provided. Of these, the best papers were produced by candidates who really did understand the niceties of some sophisticated terms, while others suggested they had memorised without really grasping the implications of what they knew as it related to the question. The second question attracted only a few respondents, usually of the more sophisticated kind, who did some very nice work with “artifice.” Prose: The Novel and Short Story 3(a) The endings of fictional works are a fertile field for questions, and it might be expected that some discussions have taken place in IB classes concerning the nature of endings, comparative handlings and analyses, and the connection of endings to the whole work. Clearly, some candidates were well prepared for this question, prepared to analyse, cite detail, and make evaluations. There were some unfortunate answers that delivered plot summary, chiefly, and some candidates who failed to distinguish life from literature, carrying the discussion beyond the construct of the fiction. “Rounding off” and “opening out” were only explored in a limited number of answers. 3(b) This was the less popular question, not as often selected, but as in 1(a) candidates were well-served by defining their terms, and avoiding plot summary, offering instead analyses of plot. It is an interesting question to contemplate why so few students have a definition of “style” on which to rely. In fact, the notion that plot and style can be wholly separated led to some poorly-informed discussions; their interaction was not often discussed with much competence. Prose: Other than the Novel or Short Story 4(a) and 4(b) Again this year, a small entry, although like poetry a choice that is experiencing some growth. In the first, more popular question, examiners saw answers ranging from a pleasing address of stylistic issues and the way they generated interest to others which ignored the prompt and only listed some stylistic elements. In the second question, there were often muddled views about “a different world,” although some candidates were able to show how past issues in autobiography shaped the life of the subject. General questions on Literature 5(a) Surely the implication is that “freedom of choice” is to be connected to characters in texts, or even to authorial choice. Most candidates chose the former, and while some produced careful analysis, many also simply listed choices by characters. Fate versus free will emerged here on occasion. “Inform your reading” proved to be a puzzle, which was either ignored or treated as “information from your reading.”



5(b) Many candidates, after setting up definitions and distinctions, were able to write interesting and valid essays on this topic. Awareness of a “public role” was not a particularly strong feature of the essays, and character study rather than authorial choice was popular. Candidates studying novels had a fair degree of success with this question. 5( c) This question seemed especially popular with candidates studying drama, and a number of examiners praised their performance. The number of terms in the question was surely problematic and examiners were likely to reward candidates handling most of them. The results of the clash of fact and fantasy were only rarely addressed. 5(d) The question seemed to attract weaker candidates, with love and friendship a popular choice, often sentimentally given a “personal response.” The opposed and parallel sets of terms demanded distinction and clarification; lists were a popular approach to this question. The G2 forms indicated that most teachers approved of the questions posed for genre, with a few more reservation about the “General Questions.” Their application to poetry, for example, is tenuous in some cases. Specificity, as well as a literary focus, is wanted in these questions, not always an easy thing to achieve, but something for which students must be trained if they are to succeed outside of their specific genre questions.. Standard Level This report treats an overview of strengths and weaknesses of candidate performance in this session, followed by recommendations for good practice and improved essays. The final element of the report looks at individual questions, the difficulties and successes. Strengths of candidates in this component Generally, the candidates’ scripts ranged from poor to good, with a small number of excellent performances. Examiners judged that candidates knew their texts fairly well in most cases, and were able to discuss them in relation to the questions chosen. Most attempted to answer the question they had selected. There seems to be less retelling of the plot than in the past and candidates generally possessed the vocabulary to express their ideas in the appropriate register. Weaknesses of candidates in this component Rather often, students failed to answer all aspects of the question selected. (More specific treatment of this weakness can be found below with specific questions.) Both the skill of analysis and the construction of an argument were noticeably absent in some centres. Operating comparatively rather than offering two separate treatments of works in response to the question is no easy achievement. Candidates clearly need practice in this skill. There were a fair number of essays in which the address of the two texts was unbalanced, either because of time or because of deficient familiarity with the second text. Defining terms as they are derived from the question and used in the essay is important as are details. When the question says “discuss in the light of this statement” i.e., the prompt, it means exactly that. Lengthy and less than relevant introductions did not enhance the quality of a number of essays where students devoted time to biographical information about the writers, or to casuistic explorations of such terms as “moral.”



Finally, candidates in this paper continue, in many but not all cases, to falter in meeting the demands of criterion C, address of literary features. More careful, regular practice is clearly needed. Caveat: in the general questions as well as in the genre questions, candidates must be aware that they are required to discuss the “how” of the works, often expressed as “means,” “presentation,” and “effect.” Recommendations for improved practice

• Candidates need intensive practice with “dissecting” the questions, clarifying key terms, proposing possible strategies using their part three texts.

• Writing introductions and conclusions is another skill direly in need of teaching and practice. There are many options here; the key is skill, which arises from practice.

• Candidates would be well served by highlighting key terms, rephrasing the question at the start of their essay, keeping that analysis in view, and referring to it frequently during their essay writing, perhaps even at the start of each paragraph.

• Practice with past questions and papers is valuable. However, candidates must be reminded not to vaguely retrofit the concerns of the new question with practice essays on other questions.

• It is likely that candidates working with the Poetry option will need to have done some work with memorising poems or parts of poems.

• It is worth reminding candidates that the way the examiner can best judge the knowledge of the work is through the use of examples and details.

Candidates’ performance in particular questions Drama 1(a) Candidates showed a tendency to ignore both “ordinary” and “drama at its best” ; as all have studied Shakespeare in their programme one might have thought his work would at least establish a benchmark. However, some did explore “ordinary,” and most were happy to consider “problems.” Here as in 1(b) the “American Dream” was often treated glibly as self-explanatory and simple, blithely making assumptions and conclusions about its relation to plays. “Problems” were often conflated with themes. Willy Loman and Antigone were popular choices for examples although the latter could surely be treated more effectively, along with Oedipus Rex, as reasons to question the question. 1(b) Most candidates had something valid to say about openings; fewer addressed either set or stage directions, limiting the discussion to dialogue and action. Answers were often disappointing in their failure to define openings and their function, and to relate openings to the rest of the play. Still, there were some answers that went on to look at the effect of the openings, sometimes addressing either function, presentation, or rarely, both. Poetry 2(a) Candidates found this an attractive question and were frequently well prepared to address word choice and imagery. Some essays tended to cite what their poets said about poetry rather that focusing on the actual poems. In answering either of the poetry questions, close scrutiny of one to two poems by each poet in constructing a comparative essay sometimes proves the best strategy. 2(b) This question was the less popular of the two on poetry, and the prompt was seldom addressed. Care was required in providing an angle on the question , one that brings stylistic issues into play; however, there were candidates who did just that. Some candidates, on the other hand, reduced the question to a request for “what does the poet write about?” ignoring both prompt and question and were not very successful in criteria B or C.



Prose: The Novel and Short Story 3(a) Given a fairly straightforward and somewhat predictable question, answers were successful insofar as candidates had a clear sense of different narrative techniques and the appropriate vocabulary to discuss point of view. It should be noted that using two short stories by the same writer does not meet the demand of this exercise which requires comparison of two different writers. 3(b) In this question as well as in the phrasing of many others, candidates need to understand that report or discussion of what is present in the texts as regards family is best done in summary fashion; however, the question clearly demands attention to the “presentation,” the way in which the writer handles the delivery of the topic. Additionally here, the candidate is asked to explore how the presentation “shaped your understanding.” Many candidates could talk about where family or its absence appeared in the texts; far fewer were those who discussed family in terms of the question. Prose: Other than the Novel or Short Story 4(a) The particular ways in which authors “structured” their non-fiction works eluded a good many of those candidates who chose this question and who simply fell to paraphrasing and plot summary. Attempts to respond by looking at such features as chapters and parts, chronology, flashbacks, and foreshadowing offered some students a way into the question and there was some success in exploring those features. 4(b) “Personal experience” seemed a viable angle for a number of candidates discussing this genre. However, many overlooked the potential for comparison in the phrase “the extent to which.” “Comment upon society” was not a phrase which appeared in many answers, but there were, nevertheless, some good responses to the heart of the question as for example, in comparisons of Morgan’s My Place and Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. General Questions on Literature 5(a) “Moral issues” is a subject often embraced quite happily by students; less felicitous is the level of their concern with precision in their definitions of these, and their developed work in attending to their own definitions. The prompt was only sometimes considered “in the light of this statement,” but when it was, candidates often arrived at interesting conclusions about their texts as they wrestled with the difficulty of reducing characters and events to “good’s good and bad’s bad.” 5(b) Again, struggles with the prompt were often productive of the more interesting responses, using such texts as A Streetcar Named Desire and God Dies on the Nile. Some subtlety was demanded in treating the paradox of the prompt, and surely a bit of subtlety is not beyond the capabilities of standard level candidates. A number of candidates discussed “the treatment of love” from an effective literary angle. 5( c) Candidates choosing “contrast” tended to perform well in criterion C, especially when they maintained a pointed address of the effects of this literary feature. The question also proposed a good challenge for candidates in selecting effective examples which showed some independent judgment about the texts. Still, some candidates offered rather simplistic character sketches without much address of the way authors exploited the possibilities of contrast. 5(d) Here, a disconcerting number of candidates ignored the “or,” producing diffuse and thin answers. Few seemed to focus on the ways writers incorporated one of the elements in their works, although both travel and celebration were well reported if not very carefully analysed in a few essays. Judging from the G2 forms, teachers were generally pleased with the genre questions.



However, several forms indicated more reservations about the General Questions on Literature. It is important to bear in mind the range of texts and genres these questions attempt to accommodate. Candidates need to be advised that it may be that not all of the General Questions will be entirely suitable for their particular set of texts and that all of the questions require the candidate to address authorial choices as manifested in literary features.


Documents

ENGLISH A1 Overall grade boundaries - Wikispacesenglishesf.wikispaces.com/file/view/May+03+Exam+report.pdf · ENGLISH A1 Overall grade boundaries Higher Level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7