Hey Angelina
You are probably familiar with the controversial image as well. The question asked about the form and language techniques, but I discussed visual techniques. Is that what the form means?
Also discussion groups are saying that at least 5 pages are needed for Band 5. Is that true? Wouldn't a quality 4 page essay be better, than a longer one, but not as good. Additionally, some people write big, some smaller letters, so surely the number of pages is not the most important thing?!
Just saw these questions now! If you discussed language and visual techniques you should be good because the form of the text is visual
I also try to get it out of students' heads that you need to read a certain number of pages to do well because everyone has different handwriting sizes, some people cross out a lot more things etc. so gauging how you went based on pages won't give you much. As long as you answer your question, use quotes and techniques to support your arguments and effectively link back, you're fine! It definitely is up to quality over quantity
Also, for Paper 2 in the creative story, did anyone begin with the stimulus (even though it said not to write the full thing out), because I quoted different parts of the stimulus throughout my creative, did anyone else do this?
Coolmate
This is also fine! I did this in Extension 1 English in my HSC; I treated the provided excerpt they gave us as a refrain so I was using it throughout my response. What matters is that your response was relevant to it and developed its ideas in an engaging way
As for my thoughts on the Module C section, BakerDad12 is right in that the NESA sample paper did show an option where they could just ask for a full 20 mark response and specify a text type so teachers should have prepared students for that outcome. However, I also agree with ririre in that there is this whole emphasis being placed now with the new syllabus on learning other text types, developing connections with your prescribed texts through the writing and engaging in the craft of writing in a more holistic manner. Either way, I think them throwing this as a curveball in the second year of the syllabus was a poor move. I am on the fence with this debate because I wasn't the one sitting the paper and I think whatever any of you think about it is more valid
Ultimately, I think that the papers could have been way worse and while everyone faced their own set of challenges, you will all come out just fine