When I did my context SAC (Unit 1/2) a few weeks ago, I aced it and received full marks. I wrote it as an Imaginative/Expository TV interview, which worked really well for me.
However, on my English exam the other day, I wrote a standard expository essay, and I feel like it limited my ability to express my ideas; resulting in a poor performance.
As I progress through VCE English, should I stick with the TV interview format, or should I experiment around a little?
Also, if I were to stick with the interview/dialogue format, how should I start the piece. On my SAC I wrote a little paragraph at the start, something like:
The following is a television transcript from an interview conducted between (Person 1) and (Person 2), originally broadcast on the (Television Network) on (Current affairs program) at (Time) on the (Date):
This intro didn't feel right. Should I alter it, or just leave it out altogether?
Hi, I'm not overly sure about the introduction, but I would think that that is allowed as it does give the examiner insight to what you'll speak of since they don't have any prior information about it. I would personally have started mine of with dialogue in an interview transcript.
As for your other question, you are in year 11 so you have time to play around and find the writing style that suits you. However, saying that, if you're good at something in year 11, such as the imaginative transcript, I would think it would be better if you chose your style now and perfected it for year 12. By the way, considering you aced an interview transcript, I would personally practice it and stick with it till next year, as schools in year 12 rightfully tend to encourage students to pursue something other than the overused expository essays or articles.
In context, how much of our nominated text do we need to draw from?
I was very confused, do we need to have at least 25% of our writing to be based on our selected text?
Are a few references enough?
How much do we need to 'satisfy requirements' ?
It depends on your style of writing.
For imaginative pieces, you can take core-text elements, characters, themes and ideas and explore them within your piece. You don't need to make direct reference, but rather just exploring the same or similar ideas is fine.
For a persuasive or context pieces, you can make direct links to the text. However, I don't think that's a must. Instead you can also just explore the ideas. You can use quotes, history and evidence from the text.
Overall, you can't really define the extent to which they want you to refer to the text. You do have to, but as told by my own school, I think it's okay if you use indirect references, instead of saying "As seen in this book... blah blah".
When analysing and writing about the visual in language analysis, say I have 3 articles in the piece (one main one and two comments), what do i have to include? Like do I need to only write about the main article and it's relation to the image (since it would have been published to aid their argument/persuasion)? Thankyou!
You definitely have to include an analysis of the visual with respect to its accompanying article. As for the other two comments:
- If they seek to elicit the same feeling in parents, i.e. concern, then you can refer to the image. The image and the comment may have the same key argument, or position readers to feel or do something specific.
- If the comments contradict the ideas of the image, you can say "In stark contrast...." and compare. In this case, you can refer to the key arguments as they will contradict each other. Similarly, as such, the illustration and the writer of the comment would be seeking to position readers differently.
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think you can and should compare the articles and images.
Hope this helps