Bazza's English questions

[WhoTookMyUsername]

Thanks laseredd
The thing im mainly concerned about is there's only space to write ONE set text, or coudl we just sneakily write two ? Cos if we write one text and only talk about it for 25% of the time that probably wouldn't be enough, not sure

[charmanderp]

Yeah when you think about it, if you write a creative piece you could effectively have 0% direct association with a singular text. It's more about drawing from the ideas of a primary nominated text in your discussion and then cogently moving to other sources, be it external or another text. There really is no notion of a '50% allocation', I phrased that pretty poorly to be honest. But you do need to have a very strong association between your piece and a single text, as well as any supplementary evidence.

I think I read in the assessor's report that a lot of students add a second text in only to make the word count and it makes their piece appear to be contrived and drawn out unnecessarily, so that's something we should all be wary of.

[Lasercookie]

Thanks laseredd
The thing im mainly concerned about is there's only space to write ONE set text, or coudl we just sneakily write two ? Cos if we write one text and only talk about it for 25% of the time that probably wouldn't be enough, not sure

We tick the boxes this year, not write them in. (edit: actually double checked and there's still a box for the main text bit)

 Have a look at the assessor reports though, I don't really want to quote the whole thing here, but basically - yes you can use both texts and it would probably be enough unless you're being superficial about your evidence (retelling plots only etc.).

More quoting (from 2010 this time)

While students writing using an expository approach tended to employ both texts
...
"‘Your writing must draw directly from at least one selected text that you have studied for this Context and be based on the ideas in the prompts’ and that they must show the link between the text and the response. The term ‘directly’ in the instructions did not imply ‘specifically’, rather it meant incisively, perceptively and judiciously. "

I think I read in the assessor's report that a lot of students add a second text in only to make the word count and it makes their piece appear to be contrived and drawn out unnecessarily, so that's something we should all be wary of.

Yeah it does say that. But then again, they also said that some students were able to use two texts quite well. I don't think Bazza is digging himself into a hole by opting to discuss both of his texts.

Really, I think the only thing we can draw out of it that (as you said) if you have the strong association with the text then you'd be well off.

[charmanderp]

Yeah it's been made quite explicitly clear that students do well using one text or two texts, extraneous examples or not.

[WhoTookMyUsername]

I did a practice exam that was marked by an external examiner.
I got a 6 on context which i was incredibly shocked and ... disheartened by (did well on other two sections (10 - 9) which means i'm not in a completely horrible position)
She disliked my lack of explicit discussion with reference to the text.
I made an extremely obvious implicit reference to Streetcar, citing a key example and then talked about this for half a paragraph.
I also talked about Spies for a little bit, linking the physical abuse of ted hawyward to other possible causes.

maybe I need to overhaul the way i approach context

 I'm using a "feature article" form - do you guys reckon it's safer to have explicit referencing to the text so i can connect to it more deeply and obviously? Is this less risky? It's definitely less authentic. And i was trying to grant my piece some authenticity with my implicit references which i thought were quite clever.


Thanks

 

[Felicity Wishes]

I did a practice exam that was marked by an external examiner.
I got a 6 on context which i was incredibly shocked and ... disheartened by (did well on other two sections (10 - 9) which means i'm not in a completely horrible position)
She disliked my lack of explicit discussion with reference to the text.
I made an extremely obvious implicit reference to Streetcar, citing a key example and then talked about this for half a paragraph.
I also talked about Spies for a little bit, linking the physical abuse of ted hawyward to other possible causes.

maybe I need to overhaul the way i approach context

 I'm using a "feature article" form - do you guys reckon it's safer to have explicit referencing to the text so i can connect to it more deeply and obviously? Is this less risky? It's definitely less authentic. And i was trying to grant my piece some authenticity with my implicit references which i thought were quite clever.


Thanks

Is Streetcar one of the texts?

[pi]

Streetcar is one of the creating and presenting texts - A Streetcar Named Desire

[dilks]

Until next year when it will be replaced by Death of a Salesman.

[WhoTookMyUsername]

I did a practice exam that was marked by an external examiner.
I got a 6 on context which i was incredibly shocked and ... disheartened by (did well on other two sections (10 - 9) which means i'm not in a completely horrible position)
She disliked my lack of explicit discussion with reference to the text.
I made an extremely obvious implicit reference to Streetcar, citing a key example and then talked about this for half a paragraph.
I also talked about Spies for a little bit, linking the physical abuse of ted hawyward to other possible causes.

maybe I need to overhaul the way i approach context

 I'm using a "feature article" form - do you guys reckon it's safer to have explicit referencing to the text so i can connect to it more deeply and obviously? Is this less risky? It's definitely less authentic. And i was trying to grant my piece some authenticity with my implicit references which i thought were quite clever.


Thanks

 

Do you guys think it would be better to have all explicit referencing?
thanks

[pi]

How explicit was "explicit"? Like a quote from the text?

[WhoTookMyUsername]

like when stella says "I couldn't believe Blanche and go on living with Stanley" or whatever, i was like a friend once told me "I couldn't believe my sister and go on living with my husband" and then talked about the repurcussions of believing her husband etc.

[pi]

Hmmm, it's probably not the best to use direct quotes like that in an expository, that's more of a creative/expos hybrid thing to do imo.

[charmanderp]

Until next year when it will be replaced by Death of a Salesman.

That's pretty exciting - Streetcar is an awesome play but Death of a Salesman is possibly my favourite Arthur Miller play. Do you know if the Crucible is being taken out of the syllabus next year, or will there be two Arthur Miller texts?

[paulsterio]

Just remember that with Section B (Context) pieces, you're never writing ABOUT a text, you're drawing IDEAS from a text, it's two very different concepts. If you start thinking of it as "drawing ideas from" - you'll be more focused in the right direction, reading the text with an emphasis on the ideas the author brings up.

[brenden]

Until next year when it will be replaced by Death of a Salesman.

That's pretty exciting - Streetcar is an awesome play but Death of a Salesman is possibly my favourite Arthur Miller play. Do you know if the Crucible is being taken out of the syllabus next year, or will there be two Arthur Miller texts?

+1, Death of a Salesman is fantastic.