Thanks so much Lauren, think I understand where you're coming from! And sorry I didn't make the task clearer 
The text is the Wife of Martin Guerre. Although the idea of control isn't prominent, I want to show that it in fact is! e.g. Being controlled/ restricted in a society. I was hoping to base the creative piece on rowing (heaps of control needed there 
) and the rower seeing someone take his/ her life which obviously has a huge impact. I want to make the connection between my piece and the text strong but I can't express myself clearly though, especially in the written statement. Or should I write about conflict? Conflict doesn't fit my creative piece idea though...
Totally lost and appreciate your guidance 
That seems alright to me, but I'd say try to align messages and not just themes. The idea of 'being controlled' might be a bit too broad, which is why you may be struggling to make the connections to the text clear. So consider what Lewis is saying about control, and then either reinforce, build up, or critique that notion. I'm not entirely sure which aspect of 'control' in the text you're looking at, but the more specific you can be, the easier you'll find it to forge a connection.
Hi
Just a general question about text response, do we need to include the authorial voice because originally I thought we were meant to write about the novel not actually including what the author is trying to express? I'm so lost and my sac is tomorrow 
Both are crucial. You are mainly looking at the details in the text, but the whole point of doing so is to consider what the author is trying to say, meaning that you should aim to comment on the authorial voice within your paragraphs at some point (or preferably at the end.)
This is gonna be one of them 'it depends' questions I feel but in general, what is better with context: one-two sources of evidence/example (e.g a film) to be used throughout an expository essay or many smaller examples? I've been predominantly going with the numerous small examples but from reading over my work it seems like it is preventing me from going into depth with the discussion; i.e using the example to point out the obvious part of the idea I am exploring.
I'm on the 'fewer examples but more depth' side of the fence, but yeah, it depends
But I can be a bit more specific:
it depends on:a) your own strengths
b) the nature of your examples
c) the prompt's breadth
Hey, got a quick question.
Which method of language analysis is the "safest" way? For example we could write them in chronological order, order by arguments, order by persuasive devices, etc.
What do you mean by safest? Because the chronological method is objectively simplest (i.e. you don't have to put any effort into thinking about where to start; you can kick of with analysis straight away). However, because it's so dependent on the material, you might end up with something as horrific as the
2011 Exam (or some of the
samples I wrote last year ) and you'll likely have a tough time compiling it all neatly. Also, if you look through the most recent VCAA exams, you'll notice that the authors' focus shifts throughout the piece such that what's being discussed at the start of page 1 is the same as the middle of page 2. And the way they conclude has links to the stuff mentioned in their third paragraph. So if you're going through totally chronologically, you either have to repeat yourself, or ditch potential analysis opportunities to avoid repeating yourself.
The chronological approach may have sufficed in earlier years ('08-'13, excluding '11) but nowadays, I kind of see it as a recipe for disaster.
And by disaster, I mean a mid-range mark
So if you're only looking to get yourself across the line in English, or need an easy method to suit your strengths, then it might do. But I tend to advocate against it by default.
It's still a good last resort; it just shouldn't be your first resort!Structuring by devices just seems bizarre to me; I don't know how anyone can do that sensibly without turning their piece into a jumbled mess.
Structuring by arguments/ key players is my best advice (mainly for the reasons vor has mentioned above) but also because it's kind of what the assessors are looking for nowadays. When you read the assessor's report, you see that they emphasise, amongst other things:
• There was no expected manner in which the pieces were to be analysed and most students began by analysing the first piece then analysing the second. The more successful responses made insightful analytical comparisons, focusing on such things as tone, structure and, most importantly, the language used by the two writers.
• Successful responses were able to show the inherent connection between the general ideas of each piece and the language used to present those views.
• Some students offered topic sentences that suggested they were searching for particular ‘techniques’, with little regard to the instructions for this section: ‘How is written and visual language used in the newspaper article and the letter to attempt to persuade readers to share the points of view presented in them?’ Simply identifying techniques demonstrates a limited approach to this task.
• It is important for students to be aware of the intentions of speakers in respect to the contention
• High-scoring students found an appropriate balance between the two speeches and between analysis of the visual language and written language.
I'm in Year 11 and I just can't seem to finish my essays in the 100 minutes we have for the SAC. For both my text response and Language analysis pieces I didn't finish, barely starting my conclusion. Any tips for improving? Time management is my biggest weakness when it comes to English
Some hints here 
Home
Help
Search
Login
