How to write a 20/20 Section B Creating and Presenting Context Piece

[Soul_Khan]

Great thread!


are you going to make tl;dr version perhaps?

[Lasercookie]

are you going to make tl;dr version perhaps?

If you read it, then you'd have noticed he did provide a bit of tl;dr at the bottom

I don't see why you wouldn't read the whole thing though.

[VivaTequila]

I admit it's horrible to read at the moment. Yes I will summarise it and make it much nicer to read. In all honesty it's been written quite badly and I haven't really thought through what I was trying to say. I'll probably rewrite most of it now that it's a sticky, but not right now.

[EvangelionZeta]

I would just say for now that it's not always that 'simple' to get a 20/20.  It's relatively straightforward to practice to the point where/learn how you can write a very very good Context piece, but markers are extremely volatile creatures, and will often preference different things, to the extent that small technicalities can cut you down.

As an example of this, VivaTequila, your style of mentioning all of your texts in your introduction is a method I personally abhor and strongly discourage students from - I feel as though it is completely unnecessary in a style which emphasises ideas, and is even detrimental in the sense that introduction is better served elaborating upon the themes you will develop (and for me, this is enough to question whether or not a piece is actually 10/10 - it has to be the best of the best, after all).  A lot of teachers I know agree with me on this.  In balance, given that you wrote in this style and did well in it, I assume a lot of teachers also approve.  Cool beans.

I say this not to discourage people from taking VivaTequila's word for things; this is a great thread, and a lot of the advice is top tier stuff.  Instead, I just want people to be aware that the mechanics of the VCE system mean that getting full marks in ANYTHING humanities-based is always more complicated than it might seem, and that you should always be critical from as many differing perspectives as possible - along with learning to write well, THIS is how you potentially achieve a 20/20.

[VivaTequila]

I would just say for now that it's not always that 'simple' to get a 20/20.  It's relatively straightforward to practice to the point where/learn how you can write a very very good Context piece, but markers are extremely volatile creatures, and will often preference different things, to the extent that small technicalities can cut you down.

As an example of this, VivaTequila, your style of mentioning all of your texts in your introduction is a method I personally abhor and strongly discourage students from - I feel as though it is completely unnecessary in a style which emphasises ideas, and is even detrimental in the sense that introduction is better served elaborating upon the themes you will develop (and for me, this is enough to question whether or not a piece is actually 10/10 - it has to be the best of the best, after all).  A lot of teachers I know agree with me on this.  In balance, given that you wrote in this style and did well in it, I assume a lot of teachers also approve.  Cool beans.

I say this not to discourage people from taking VivaTequila's word for things; this is a great thread, and a lot of the advice is top tier stuff.  Instead, I just want people to be aware that the mechanics of the VCE system mean that getting full marks in ANYTHING humanities-based is always more complicated than it might seem, and that you should always be critical from as many differing perspectives as possible - along with learning to write well, THIS is how you potentially achieve a 20/20.

If it's any consolation, I didn't actually do that in the exam now that I think about it. It was all about trying to explain the somewhat left-field idea and make sure it was justified. I completely agree with the criticisms.

I don't exactly know why I wrote that piece like that - I guess a few things come into it. Firstly I haven't written a context essay in almost a year and had forgotten how I wrote it in the exam. Then I didn't exactly know how to structure it so I just put the very general discussion in the introduction (although I don't completely agree that referencing the texts was a bad idea, I just think that the introduction space  could have been better in lieu of a discussion of how the essay is going to unfold).

When I think about the essay, it's still very formulaic - introduction which discusses the paragraphs, 3 body paragraphs, conclusion. It's somewhere in the middle of freestyle and the stock-standard English essay.

This is also great stuff and everyone would do well to listen to EZs criticisms because it's true. Top tier introductions discuss not what the paragraphs are going to be about specifically, as I've done with the sample essay so far. They would be better used to elaborate further [in this case] on why authors do this and how they achieve it.

The stock standard introduction is something akin to an opening sentence which addresses the prompt or what your essay is about, a brief explanation, and then examples of your 3 paragraphs. What I think EZ is saying is that those examples of the 3 paragraphs could be better utilized to not discuss your 3 paragraphs but to rather elaborate on your ideas - your 3 paragraphs are there to support your ideas and you don't need to discuss them in the intro.

[EvangelionZeta]

Well, IMO, it's more that you shouldn't even mention anything related to examples/texts/authors at all in the introduction - I would rather the introduction be a purely ideological/philosophical exploration and only that.  The rationale for this is that IMO, the texts are only there to support your ideas, and are comparatively insignificant to the markers in terms of what is most important for marks; therefore the ideas themselves always come first, and they are what should get by far the most focus.  Here is an example of the style I prefer from a 50-scoring student:

Prompt: People can never be sure that they share the same understanding of the truth

"In the sea of multiple perspectives in which we exist, an absolute grounding is something which becomes almost impossible to find.  Truth is an inaccessible objective reality, and we can only ever get some sense of it.  Moreover this sense does not necessarily complement the point of view of others, and it is dangerous to assume that everyone shares the same opinion.  For depending on our character, history and emotions, we are affected in unique ways by different events, both at the time and in our future recollections as well.  Our differing responses shape our understanding of an overall reality, and since no-one shares an identical journey through life, there are almost always slight disparities.  This is especially likely when we deal with perceptions of ourselves, as human beings are prone to tampering with their personal sense of identity to place themselves in a more flattering light.  The nature or extent of these differences in perception are not always clear, however, since disparate outlooks on the reality of the world often remain hidden unless specific events occur to draw out different interpretations.  Something which appears to be understood in a single way on the surface may in fact have interpretations of the finer details which differ.  This potential for a false sense of unity only adds to the uncertainty associated with the idea of a single truth.  It also allows the possibility that we become too self-assured that everyone shares the same understanding of the truth, which can allow problems to arise.  While the appearance of cracks in a cohesive surface reality can be devastating for some, for many others, a different perspective allows a greater understanding of the world.  Thus when we become too sure that there are no other realities, we miss the opportunity to frame our understanding with that of others.  There is no guarantee that everyone sees the truth as we do, and it is foolish to falsely assume that there is."

It's perhaps a little bit too long (I prefer intros in context ot be maybe 200-250 words), but you can see how there is absolutely nothing on anything apart from the ideas of the prompt. 

[VivaTequila]

Well, IMO, it's more that you shouldn't even mention anything related to examples/texts/authors at all in the introduction - I would rather the introduction be a purely ideological/philosophical exploration and only that.  The rationale for this is that IMO, the texts are only there to support your ideas, and are comparatively insignificant to the markers in terms of what is most important for marks; therefore the ideas themselves always come first, and they are what should get by far the most focus.  Here is an example of the style I prefer from a 50-scoring student:

Prompt: People can never be sure that they share the same understanding of the truth

"In the sea of multiple perspectives in which we exist, an absolute grounding is something which becomes almost impossible to find.  Truth is an inaccessible objective reality, and we can only ever get some sense of it.  Moreover this sense does not necessarily complement the point of view of others, and it is dangerous to assume that everyone shares the same opinion.  For depending on our character, history and emotions, we are affected in unique ways by different events, both at the time and in our future recollections as well.  Our differing responses shape our understanding of an overall reality, and since no-one shares an identical journey through life, there are almost always slight disparities.  This is especially likely when we deal with perceptions of ourselves, as human beings are prone to tampering with their personal sense of identity to place themselves in a more flattering light.  The nature or extent of these differences in perception are not always clear, however, since disparate outlooks on the reality of the world often remain hidden unless specific events occur to draw out different interpretations.  Something which appears to be understood in a single way on the surface may in fact have interpretations of the finer details which differ.  This potential for a false sense of unity only adds to the uncertainty associated with the idea of a single truth.  It also allows the possibility that we become too self-assured that everyone shares the same understanding of the truth, which can allow problems to arise.  While the appearance of cracks in a cohesive surface reality can be devastating for some, for many others, a different perspective allows a greater understanding of the world.  Thus when we become too sure that there are no other realities, we miss the opportunity to frame our understanding with that of others.  There is no guarantee that everyone sees the truth as we do, and it is foolish to falsely assume that there is."

It's perhaps a little bit too long (I prefer intros in context ot be maybe 200-250 words), but you can see how there is absolutely nothing on anything apart from the ideas of the prompt. 

It's like a philosophy essay hah.

It's different to how I wrote in the exam - possibly because I spent my introduction just communicating the idea as if it was some brand-spanking new thing because I wasn't expecting the assessors to follow my trail of thought. I wasn't particularly confident with it, so I took tentative care to justify myself every step of the way. This just radiates confidence.

That's definitely preferable, I wish I'd written like that.

[charmanderp]

Well, IMO, it's more that you shouldn't even mention anything related to examples/texts/authors at all in the introduction - I would rather the introduction be a purely ideological/philosophical exploration and only that.

Yeah this is what I do; a bit of a philosophical discourse as my introduction and then link that to the author/texts/examples midway through my first body paragraph. But then again EZ, it's dependent on form/style as well.

[shinny]

It's also dependent on skill. I teach to introduce the texts to most of my students because it's easier and isn't necessarily bad. It's just not as good as EZ's. Problem is the majority of students who try to pull off EZ's style would end up writing pseudo-philosophical ramble rather than a well-constructed paragraph. There's no way I could give a 'formula' for something like that as I do with something simpler like introducing texts. So unless you actually are aiming for a definite 20/20, I think introducing the texts is perfectly fine for the majority of people.

[charmanderp]

So unless you actually are aiming for a definite 20/20, I think introducing the texts is perfectly fine for the majority of people.

I'd be wary of phrasing it like that though, because it kinda sounds like you can't get 20/20 unless you do write a philosophical style introduction, which isn't true. It's just one method which I feel works really well because it demonstrates off the bat a really complex and thorough understanding of the prompt and the context and sets a really strong foundation for your discussion of the text, but of course it could easily come unraveled if you just rambled in the introduction (like I did in my most recent SAC) and confused the marker.

Some conflicts are unavoidable
Life is by no means fair, and there is no justification that could convince me otherwise. From the moment we as humans are born into this world, there are constant challenges to overcome. Our actions, no matter how great, will, more often than not, go unnoticed. We find that our fates are subject to the decisions of other, those who might be guided by a moral compass aligned on a different path to our own. And as such all humans will constantly find themselves caught by the inextricable ropes of conflict, actions subjugated until they untangle themselves from its exasperating grip. It is not a choice, to be submerged in the cauldron of conflict, but it is the decisions of a man or woman that will determine whether or not they emerge. Adversity, in its many forms, is the one constant in life. Whilst it would be erroneous and rather bleak to suggest that all conflict is unavoidable, those which are most important - most defining, most crucial - are sure to find their way into our lives. The path each person takes – or is lead on – is defined by not only how they are confronted by conflict, but also how they perceive it, and their belief that they can overcome.

This is an intro that I'm really happy with, from my first essay of the year. It's a bit rudimentary perhaps, but I feel like it addresses the prompt in a reasonably complex manner and it set up the tone for the body of my essay, without explicitly giving anything away -  it's more of a preamble on the ideological context which would be required to understand what I was alluding to in referring to the text.

I wouldn't have given this essay 20/20, maybe 18/20 or 19/20, but I think it's a good example of how important structure is.

[VivaTequila]

the level of sophistication in these discussion over marks is intense. i love you pedants <3

[charmanderp]

I think the most important thing about context writing is that it, possibly more so than other assessment tasks in popular VCE subjects, tests your 'intelligence' - it's about the student's ability to comprehend and formulate their own sophisticated ideas and then phrase them in a somewhat creative and cohesive sequence. Hence if you rely too much on the texts/source material, especially in the introduction, you run the risk of losing that element of your writing, the element of not only having good analytical and writing skills, but also an appreciation of complex ideas and themes and patterns of the psychological and social constructs which are behind the prompt/context.

[BlueSky_3]

In balance, given that you wrote in this style and did well in it, I assume a lot of teachers also approve.  Cool beans.

A bit pedantic but you can't really assume "a lot" of teachers approve, since his exam piece would've been marked by two, obviously both the markers would've given him 10, but still 2 isn't a lot.

But yeah I can understand with what your saying in that, giving examples in intro almost always encourages a simple listing of more examples and not a thorough exploration of ideas, which is what such a philosophical piece is essentially all about 

[VivaTequila]

In balance, given that you wrote in this style and did well in it, I assume a lot of teachers also approve.  Cool beans.

A bit pedantic but you can't really assume "a lot" of teachers approve, since his exam piece would've been marked by two, obviously both the markers would've given him 10, but still 2 isn't a lot.

But yeah I can understand with what your saying in that, giving examples in intro almost always encourages a simple listing of more examples and not a thorough exploration of ideas, which is what such a philosophical piece is essentially all about 

Just quietly...

I was under the impression that it gets marked by no less than 5 people.

[charmanderp]

I only know of the case for Lit, where it gets marked by two people and then if those two marks aren't reasonably alike it goes to a third marker and then if there's still no correlation a fourth and then finally the chief examiner who just decides.