VCE English Question Thread

[Cristiano]

I would think the VCAA Examiner reading your essay would have studied the John Davie translation, so if you are using quotes from another version (in which there are many out there) there may be confusion. I highly doubt they would know quotes/have studied multiple translations, so to be safe you should use the Davie translation.

[Splash-Tackle-Flail]

I've got a few questions for Context:

1. Just out of curiosity, for those who have done the exam, or those with a clear idea on what you're going to write on, what form did you adopt for the exam (i.e creative, persuasive, hybrid etc)? Did it work out in the end?

2. For the whole year I've basically stuck to writing in a newspaper article/editorial kind of format, with basically a few threads (only got two at the moment :/ )- current affairs/issues to act as the foundation to my piece. However this brings about a few issues. What do I do if I get a prompt that is really specific and my 'threads' won't work very well (e.g. if they give a prompt only focusing on conflict between two people; I would genuinely be screwed if this happens)? Will they do this in an exam? I think my threads are fairly versatile and can be adapted to an extent.

3.If so, how can I prepare for this in case they do (like would you recommend writing individual paragraphs based on different issues, but exploring different ideas- 'cause then I need to find a way to bring these issues all together, because I'm writing a newspaper piece so I can't simply link something like domestic violence to the recent asylum seeker crisis? And how would you link these recent issues to something like A Separation, which (although the ideas can be linked) is mostly irrelevant. At the moment (and in past sacs) all I've been doing is saying something like "perhaps some important lessons can be found in Asghar Farhadi's ____.....", but is just seems so forced!

[Escobar]

how closely related does a context piece have to be to the prompt?
eg if the prompt is ‘Our surroundings can be both threatening and comforting.’ can i just ignore the 'threatening' part
also, does the whole essay have to address the prompt or can i explore other ideas of the context (imaginative landscape)?

[tashhhaaa]

I realized that one of my biggest weakness in writing a timed language analysis piece is that I'm not able to select the 'right' language to analyse. Normally, I write my first two paragraphs analysing maybe the first quarter of the article (with lots and lots of bullshit), then realizing that I have only 20 minutes left I tend to do a rushed analysis even though most of the good techniques are usually at the end. Do you guys have any tips to prevent this? Or tips on how to be more selective with your choice of devices? I think I subconsciously fear running out of stuff to analyse so I tend to analyse every little device and effect I see.
Cheers 

I usually go through the article and highlight a few things and tell myself that's ALL I'm going to analyse. ie. only write about the highlighted parts
Stops me from bullshitting too much

[heids]

I've got a few questions for Context:

1. Just out of curiosity, for those who have done the exam, or those with a clear idea on what you're going to write on, what form did you adopt for the exam (i.e creative, persuasive, hybrid etc)? Did it work out in the end?

2. For the whole year I've basically stuck to writing in a newspaper article/editorial kind of format, with basically a few threads (only got two at the moment :/ )- current affairs/issues to act as the foundation to my piece. However this brings about a few issues. What do I do if I get a prompt that is really specific and my 'threads' won't work very well (e.g. if they give a prompt only focusing on conflict between two people; I would genuinely be screwed if this happens)? Will they do this in an exam? I think my threads are fairly versatile and can be adapted to an extent.

3.If so, how can I prepare for this in case they do (like would you recommend writing individual paragraphs based on different issues, but exploring different ideas- 'cause then I need to find a way to bring these issues all together, because I'm writing a newspaper piece so I can't simply link something like domestic violence to the recent asylum seeker crisis? And how would you link these recent issues to something like A Separation, which (although the ideas can be linked) is mostly irrelevant. At the moment (and in past sacs) all I've been doing is saying something like "perhaps some important lessons can be found in Asghar Farhadi's ____.....", but is just seems so forced!

1.  Expository.  (Spent like 35 mins on it though, finished only one body + started the other two, and... yeah.)

2.  Collate all the prompts you can find, and then try to invent as many more whacko prompts as you can.  Don't let yourself be scared by a nameless fear of 'what prompt could they invent', try to come up with as many prompts as you can. (e.g. you mentioned a prompt about conflict between two people; try to think of a few concrete one-sentence prompts like that, and then think about how you'd address those specific prompts.  If you can't think of one, chances are that they won't ask a prompt like that.)

Then go through the list one-by-one, really fast - like devote 1-5 min to each prompt, thinking out how you could adapt your current threads to meet the prompt.  If after 5 min you can't figure out how to do it, highlight it and come back to delving into that prompt later.

3.  Answered above.
I didn't do creative/hybrids, so have no practice; my guess is that you've gotta use transitional phrase, even if it's clunky.  Experiment with writing as many as you can until you hit some that sound less clunky; 'As I was lately reading Asghar Farhadi's ___, it really struck me that...', or 'we'd all do well to read ___, which shows...', or - well up to your inventiveness.

how closely related does a context piece have to be to the prompt?
eg if the prompt is ‘Our surroundings can be both threatening and comforting.’ can i just ignore the 'threatening' part
also, does the whole essay have to address the prompt or can i explore other ideas of the context (imaginative landscape)?

Very closely related.  That's the point of the piece - to discuss the implications of the prompt.  Take it from me, ensuring that your whole essay is relevant to the prompt will already give you a marks-boost.  It's your first, vital consideration in writing an essay.

NO YOU CANNOT.  YOU CANNOT.  YOU CANNOT.  Doing so will severely limit your marks.  You must answer the question, the whole question, and nothing (much) but the question.  The point of that prompt is that our surroundings can be both good and bad, both scary and nice, etc. - so you're not answering it if you just say 'they're nice', because you're not exploring how there can be multiple and even contradictory aspects/influences of the environment, which is the crux of the prompt.

The whole essay must address the prompt.  Okay, the prompt is a pretty wide playing field, and thus you'll find yourself discussing various ideas in the process - e.g. you might discuss the impact of changing your place, or how our surroundings define our identity, because they're related to the threatening/comforting nature of surroundings.  But unless it's closely linked to the prompt and your contention about the prompt, you can't just go talking about other unrelated ideas because you know them well.

[Splash-Tackle-Flail]

1.  Expository.  (Spent like 35 mins on it though, finished only one body + started the other two, and... yeah.)

2.  Collate all the prompts you can find, and then try to invent as many more whacko prompts as you can.  Don't let yourself be scared by a nameless fear of 'what prompt could they invent', try to come up with as many prompts as you can. (e.g. you mentioned a prompt about conflict between two people; try to think of a few concrete one-sentence prompts like that, and then think about how you'd address those specific prompts.  If you can't think of one, chances are that they won't ask a prompt like that.)

Then go through the list one-by-one, really fast - like devote 1-5 min to each prompt, thinking out how you could adapt your current threads to meet the prompt.  If after 5 min you can't figure out how to do it, highlight it and come back to delving into that prompt later.

3.  Answered above.
I didn't do creative/hybrids, so have no practice; my guess is that you've gotta use transitional phrase, even if it's clunky.  Experiment with writing as many as you can until you hit some that sound less clunky; 'As I was lately reading Asghar Farhadi's ___, it really struck me that...', or 'we'd all do well to read ___, which shows...', or - well up to your inventiveness.
Very closely related.  That's the point of the piece - to discuss the implications of the prompt.  Take it from me, ensuring that your whole essay is relevant to the prompt will already give you a marks-boost.  It's your first, vital consideration in writing an essay.

Thanks so you'd recommend quick plans, instead of full practice essays first??

[heids]

Thanks so you'd recommend quick plans, instead of full practice essays first??

A mixture.

Basically, here's the steps I was suggesting:
1.  Write, search for and collate prompts.
2.  Go through the list doing 1-5 min mental plans of how you'd adapt to each prompt.
3.  Any you can't do in such a short time, highlight.
4.  Come back later and plan until you figure out a way.  If you can't, either decide to take the risk or (if there are too many examples of this) it's time to research and rethink again.

In the meantime, you can and should also be doing other study, such as detailed 15min written plans on some of these prompts, or full 1-1.5 hour pieces.  The quick planning method helps you think under pressure and identify the areas of weakness that you need to study, and exposes you to a variety of ideas to think about.

[tashhhaaa]

should we be memorising our context pieces?
I know the assessors' report often says not to but I've heard from a few teachers and successful past students that we should???

I feel like this might be a good option for me since I struggle with conjuring up a context piece on the spot, but I'm also scared that I won't address the prompt and my mark will suffer 

[pi]

should we be memorising our context pieces?
I know the assessors' report often says not to but I've heard from a few teachers and successful past students that we should???

I feel like this might be a good option for me since I struggle with conjuring up a context piece on the spot, but I'm also scared that I won't address the prompt and my mark will suffer 

I memorised four adaptable pieces and managed to scrape an alright score. Like you, I highly doubted I would be able to come up with fresh ideas during the exam. I'd recommend it to anyone, even as a back-up plan if nothing else.

[Splash-Tackle-Flail]

I've been reading a few of the examiner's reports (thinking wow how does someone write a context piece like the second encountering conflict one in the 2014 report), and am pretty sure the foundation of their piece was "memorised"-i.e. a general outline of what they wanted to say, not word for word. I honestly doubt someone could come up with a 10/10 context piece from scratch unless they were shakespeare reincarnate..

On that note: four adaptable pieces seems like quite a lot, how different were they, and do you think the same thing could be done with say, two?

Another question here as well Whenever I'm writing, I seem to write really long body paragraphs, because it seems like the only way for me to explore ideas/analyse with enough depth to make me happy, and also means I don't have to come up with as many ideas so to speak. This means I can only churn out 3 body paragraphs in the given amount of time. However, upon reading all the sample pieces, it seems most people write more, shorter paragraphs, and I'm wondering if my longer paragraphs would be penalised in some way??

[pi]

On that note: four adaptable pieces seems like quite a lot, how different were they, and do you think the same thing could be done with say, two?

See for yourself! http://atarnotes.com/pages/?p=notes&a=feedback&id=748

I haven't read those essays in a few years, but pretty sure each was on a different theme in the context, with 2 essays loosely based around each book we studied. I ended up pretty much re-writing a piece I wrote for one of my SACs in the actual exam, which was awesome because I knew it was of a decent standard and I could smash it out in 30-40mins and save time for other things.

Could probably do two, I just did more because I had absolutely no faith in my English skills and wanted to cover all bases haha, so went for more rather than less Still have no idea how I got out of those 3 hours alive hahaha

[Splash-Tackle-Flail]

See for yourself! http://atarnotes.com/pages/?p=notes&a=feedback&id=748

I haven't read those essays in a few years, but pretty sure each was on a different theme in the context, with 2 essays loosely based around each book we studied. I ended up pretty much re-writing a piece I wrote for one of my SACs in the actual exam, which was awesome because I knew it was of a decent standard and I could smash it out in 30-40mins and save time for other things.

Could probably do two, I just did more because I had absolutely no faith in my English skills and wanted to cover all bases haha, so went for more rather than less Still have no idea how I got out of those 3 hours alive hahaha

Ah thanks, well by the looks of things (I'm not doing Whose Reality) it worked out for you haha. I'm not familiar enough with the ideas of your context (I'm doing Encountering Conflict, and have done Identity and Belonging for 1 2), but It's definitely reassuring that doing what you did (with your adaptable pieces) worked out for you-many thanks .

Here's to praying the prompt this year is nice.

[Escobar]

You must answer the question, the whole question, and nothing (much) but the question.  The point of that prompt is that our surroundings can be both good and bad, both scary and nice, etc. - so you're not answering it if you just say 'they're nice', because you're not exploring how there can be multiple and even contradictory aspects/influences of the environment, which is the crux of the prompt.

The whole essay must address the prompt.  Okay, the prompt is a pretty wide playing field, and thus you'll find yourself discussing various ideas in the process - e.g. you might discuss the impact of changing your place, or how our surroundings define our identity, because they're related to the threatening/comforting nature of surroundings.  But unless it's closely linked to the prompt and your contention about the prompt, you can't just go talking about other unrelated ideas because you know them well.

thanks for the response, just wanna make sure:
can someone confirm that you must address a context prompt completely?

the teachers at our school have taught us that you do not need to use the whole prompt. eg in a handout they gave us "You must use the prompt in some way, but you do NOT have to use every part"

[heids]

this does sound really sophisticated and I'm not sure if I can pull it off...
this whole year I've just used a chronological method, going through the article and analysing until I've run out of ideas... however, I realised that for comparatives, this isn't very efficient -- so if faced with 2 pieces to analyse, should I try to find similar key players in both and then compare and contrast each author's use of techniques etc to argue these mini-contentions? Or would you recommend doing a big comparison paragraph at the end of these essays?

It sounds really hard, but in reality it's not that hard (for most articles).  With a bit of practise, you'll be able to easily list things the author tries to present in a certain way: e.g. the author, the audience, the opposition, the government, dolphins, soft drinks, taxes, trees, whatever.  They use certain language to try and present these in certain ways, and you then analyse why they present them like this, and how it influences the reader's perception of the overall contention.

Couple of examples:

Spoiler

First piece in Weekly Letter-to-the-Editor LA Practise Club!, 'this ordinary bloke'.
Players include (the top two are important, the others minor and you probably wouldn't discuss them much/at all):
- the author (this is a huge one, how is he trying to present himself, and why?)
- politicians
- the people reporting back about the camps
- the people in the camps

For these, you then have to think:
1.  How does he present them?  What does he want these to look like?
2.  How does the language he uses contribute to this?
3.  Why does he want the readers to view them like this?
4.  How does this contribute to his overall point?

Spoiler

Read this. 

Here's where it's great for a comparative; for instance, imagine they both talk about the Government, so you have a paragraph on the govt.  You can contrast the language they use and show how this builds up different pictures of the govt - e.g. one might label the govt as 'meddlesome' and 'intefering', while another might label them as 'supportive' and 'innovative'.  And then at the end of the paragraph, having discussed the different ways they try to influence the reader, you'd show how these different ways contribute to their overall different contentions.

Whenever I'm writing, I seem to write really long body paragraphs, because it seems like the only way for me to explore ideas/analyse with enough depth to make me happy, and also means I don't have to come up with as many ideas so to speak. This means I can only churn out 3 body paragraphs in the given amount of time. However, upon reading all the sample pieces, it seems most people write more, shorter paragraphs, and I'm wondering if my longer paragraphs would be penalised in some way??

My writing was just like yours (except in LA where I'd do like 5 shorter bodies).  If you're still addressing the prompt thoroughly and exploring all your ideas, can't see why they'd penalise you - don't stress.  If you really want, you can generally split one paragraph into two similar, but slightly different ideas.

thanks for the response, just wanna make sure:
can someone confirm that you must address a context prompt completely?

the teachers at our school have taught us that you do not need to use the whole prompt. eg in a handout they gave us "You must use the prompt in some way, but you do NOT have to use every part"

I know you probably want someone else's proof, but I promise I've heard basically this from Lauren.

Weaker scripts did not show critical thinking about the idea the prompt was communicating or ignored the prompt altogether.  The more successful responses explored the core ideas of the prompt instead of treating it like a text response.  Students need to be reminded that there is an important distinction between the Context they have studied and the task they have to complete in the
exam.  They are asked to ‘explore the idea’ that is represented in the prompt; students should not present prepared responses that relate to the concepts/issues central to their Context study and ignore the idea the prompt is communicating.  While the prompt can be seen as a springboard for effective writing, the ideas of the prompt must be explored.  It is important to demonstrate an understanding of the core of the prompt.

Okay, sure, from one prompt there are millions of possible ideas and you do have to be selective in what you cover - maybe that's what your teachers meant.  But what's most important is that you address the core of the prompt, the key ideas of the prompt, what it's all about.  Just jumping on a word you like doesn't address the implications of the whole sentence.

In the example you gave about 'threatening or comforting', if you simply addressed the comforting, you would have missed the core of the prompt!  The prompt doesn't just say 'here are two unrelated ideas: the landscape can be threatening, or it can be comforting - pick one and discuss'.  It says, the landscape can be BOTH.  In other words, what you have to discuss is how the landscape doesn't just affect us in one way, how it can have multiple and even contradictory influences - and why is this?  Just discussing how it's comforting misses that whole point.  Don't see the prompt as a string of words you can randomly choose or discard; it's a sentence with a core idea that you must address.

[BanhBanh97]

Can someone please share tips for writing TR conclusion?
Thanks