Can someone please give me a rundown on what to include in the intro of context? I am doing expository and identity and belonging
No definitive rules beyond 'make it interesting, and make it relevant.'
If it's just a regular expository introduction, then try to unpack the prompt and outline your ideas (in that order.) Alternatively, you could use an example / the text / a quote /
something to create a 'hook' to make it engaging, and there are no limits on how you could choose to begin. Probably best to just work out what you've been doing so far this year, and just refine that for the exam.
For language analysis, if a device you want to point out seems kind of obscure (e.g. citing "eight per cent" instead of "8%" hides the statistic since it blends in with the other words), should we scrap it? Or should we justify it by saying why we think it's significant, in brackets? For instance, "(figures are usually used in conjunction with percentages)"
Ideally you'll have enough language to talk about that you won't need to mention everything you come across, so if there are some points that are kind of dodgy or not as efficacious as others, definitely showcase your ability to be selective by leaving them out. Statistics tend to be kind of pedestrian techniques to point out anyways ('Author uses numbers because numbers are persuasion' tends to be the gist of most analyses) so unless you think it's especially pertinent, it'd be better to focus on the more important stuff.
In regards to text response, how much "construction"or metalanguage do we need to employ for the 9-10 marks.
And in regards to in depth analysis of particular quotes and scenes, how much in detail are we meant to go?
1) depends on the prompt, and the text come to think of it, but I'd say try to have a minimum of one structural thing in each paragraph ~that's really arbitrary though; you could easily flout that 'rule' and still get a perfect score. In terms of metalanguage, almost all your sentences should contain metalanguage because you'll be discussing and analysing the text.
2) You can assume that your assessor has read the text, but you should go into enough depth such that a clever five year old could follow your logic. When it comes to summative details (ie.
This event happens following
this character's revelation that
this was a lie all along) you can be very brief, but in terms of interpretation, try to back yourself up wherever possible.
How many outside sources at the least do we need for context? I've got 2 but my third one is a bit hazy still..
I'd aim to have more than you need, so perhaps read up on some other ones tomorrow and give yourself four in total, just in case. If the three that you've got are incredibly flexible, then you might be okay, but you'd want to be as prepared as you can be.
As a preparation exercise, read through the prompts
here and
here. If you think your examples are sufficient for you to cover the majority of those prompts, then you're ready. If there are still a few key areas in your Context that you can't cover though, maybe do a bit of reading and research tomorrow just in case.
Is there some sort of trick to identify the 'key players' in L.A faster? I tend to spend along time during reading time trying to identify them and make links between the article, comments and visuals.
THANKS!
1. What is the contention? eg. space exploration = good
2. How does the author argue that^ to be true? eg. there are benefits for humanity; chasing dreams is good; exploration is cooperative and productive
3. You now have your three key players: 'the benefits of space exploration;' 'the advantage of pursuing dreams;' & 'the cooperative and productive nature of exploration'
If you end up with more than you need, try to group them so that you don't end up spending too much time on L.A. but ensuring that you cover the article in sufficient detail,
eg. 'financial gains to be made from exploring space' and 'global interest in attaining knowledge and other benefits (see: 2nd visual)' could easily be grouped into a big 'benefits for humanity' paragraph.
Likewise, if you end up only having two key players, try to split the bigger or more dominant one into two smaller arguments
eg. if you've only got 'benefits to humanity' and 'chasing dreams is good'
then perhaps turn 'benefits' into --> 'tangible improvements to technology and livelihood' + 'spiritual fulfillment at having pursued and accomplished something'
The other thing to keep in mind is that the assessors are never looking for a single, definitive breakdown. It may put your mind at ease to know that so long as your method is working for you, the assessors will approve. It's not as though they look at your essay and say 'that's not how
I would've done it, so -4 marks instantly.' It's all about what you think are the most important parts of the article, and there's a lot of flexibility to move around within your body paragraphs, so don't stress. The fact that you're showing some awareness of the key players will already make you stand out amongst all the standard chronological/by-technique methods people tend to apply blindly.