Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 09:16:51 am

Author Topic: VCE English Question Thread  (Read 847420 times)  Share 

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Chang Feng

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Respect: 0
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #270 on: April 01, 2015, 10:47:56 am »
0
THanks.
and also for context, are we required to have quotes from the set text. Or do we need to only take evidence from set text and then analyse how this is relevant to the broader context ie encountering conflict.

Callum@1373

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • National Youth Science Forum Session C 2016!
  • Respect: +26
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #271 on: April 02, 2015, 01:12:33 pm »
0
How should I learn the play Macbeth? We are starting it for T.R week 2 of next term, and I'd like to know the play before then. My problem is with Shakespeare plays, just reading the Shakespearean English confuses me, and if I just read it alongside the modern translation I find it incredibly boring and don't get the 'big picture' of what is happening.

Thanks  :D
2015: Business Management [48]
2016: English [43] Specialist Mathematics [43] Methods [46] Chemistry [45] Biology [45]

ATAR: 99.65
NYSF Session C 2016

Recipient of ANU National Scholars Program

http://www.callum-lowe.weebly.com

scarletmoon

  • Victorian
  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Respect: 0
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #272 on: April 02, 2015, 09:57:31 pm »
0
I'm not sure what this prompt means "Brooklyn is in essence an exploration of place"
2016-2019 Bachelor of Science @ UoM

JackSonSmith

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
  • "Failure is part of nature, success is man-made"
  • Respect: +4
  • School Grad Year: 2015
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #273 on: April 02, 2015, 10:38:49 pm »
+1
I'm not sure what this prompt means "Brooklyn is in essence an exploration of place"

Perhaps it's about one's place in society. The importance of belonging to a place. Identifying with a place. Where we place our values. etc.

Just my own interpretations.
2014: Psychology
2015: English | Methods | Chinese SL | Specialist | Physics 

2016: Bachelor of Commerce - The University of Melbourne

Start where you are. Use what you have.  Do what you can. – Arthur Ashe

StupidProdigy

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Respect: +28
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #274 on: April 02, 2015, 11:54:28 pm »
+1
I'm not sure what this prompt means "Brooklyn is in essence an exploration of place"
Make it what you want it to mean. As long as it is structured well and obviously relates to the text still. There is often questions out there like this which allow you to show your own interpretation of the prompt and show the examiner (or whoever) an alternate discussion . Just make sure to define the key terms the way you see them and are going to explore them :)
2015 ATAR: 99.25
FREE Tutoring: Further (45), Methods (44), Specialist (42) and Biology (42).

Chang Feng

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Respect: 0
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #275 on: April 04, 2015, 01:03:20 pm »
0
For language analysis.
When they say to analysis the writer's different approach. what does it mean by approach??.
Thanks you.
if you understand what i mean

Chang Feng

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Respect: 0
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #276 on: April 04, 2015, 01:06:52 pm »
0
For a text response essay.
for every evidence you provide, such as a specific scene, how much explanation do you need to give it. cause teacher said i have tendency to not explain things in enough detail before i move on to next evidence.
Also for the end of year exam are we required to have multiple interpretation for text response and if so how would you implement it in.Also do we need social, historical context for end of year text response essay to.
thanks

JackSonSmith

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
  • "Failure is part of nature, success is man-made"
  • Respect: +4
  • School Grad Year: 2015
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #277 on: April 04, 2015, 03:17:42 pm »
+1
For a text response essay.
for every evidence you provide, such as a specific scene, how much explanation do you need to give it. cause teacher said i have tendency to not explain things in enough detail before i move on to next evidence.
Also for the end of year exam are we required to have multiple interpretation for text response and if so how would you implement it in.Also do we need social, historical context for end of year text response essay to.
thanks

Generally speaking, it's recommended that you explain why/how a piece of evidence fits into/supports your contention.
When it comes to interpretations, it's always going to be best if you use your own unique interpretation of a text. What do you think/believe, based on the evidence from the text.
It is often beneficial to show an awareness of the time period and setting of a text and how they influence key events and characters. I'd certainly consider attitudes and beliefs at the time.
2014: Psychology
2015: English | Methods | Chinese SL | Specialist | Physics 

2016: Bachelor of Commerce - The University of Melbourne

Start where you are. Use what you have.  Do what you can. – Arthur Ashe

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #278 on: April 04, 2015, 09:32:31 pm »
+6
THanks.
and also for context, are we required to have quotes from the set text. Or do we need to only take evidence from set text and then analyse how this is relevant to the broader context ie encountering conflict.
Quotes are not essential (unless your teacher says they are.)
In the exam, ideas are what counts, so it's enough to just take a key element or occurrence (or possibly multiple if you prefer the 'breadth over depth' approach) in the text and discuss the relevance of that.
In the SAC, whatever your teacher wants is the priority, so if s/he is saying 'put 7 quotes in your introduction and then 5 per paragraph' then that's exactly what you should do :) If they're flexible, then do whatever you like. Some people find using the language of the text to be a very effective way of branching into discussion, but it depends what you're studying and what kind of writer you are. Suffice it to say: no, it's not a Text Response, so quotes aren't necessarily a necessity :)

How should I learn the play Macbeth? We are starting it for T.R week 2 of next term, and I'd like to know the play before then. My problem is with Shakespeare plays, just reading the Shakespearean English confuses me, and if I just read it alongside the modern translation I find it incredibly boring and don't get the 'big picture' of what is happening.
No Fear Shakespeare do the side-by-side translations, so if you're not a fan of the Bard then I'd either get a copy of their version or just read it online. But unless you're a die-hard-English-fanatic, that whole 'you have to read the text first before you read summaries/resources' is nonsense. Read a summary, watch the sparknotes video, watch a film adaptation if you find an accurate one. Watch this.
Read this.
After a battle three witches tell Macbeth (the 'Thane of Glamis' = kind of like an Earl or Nobleman) that he will become 'Thane of Cawdor' (a higher title) and eventually King; and that his friend Banquo will never be king, but his son will. Later the king declares Macbeth 'Thane of Cawdor,' so Macbeth starts to think the prophecy is true. He talks to his wife (Lady Macbeth) who is more power-mad than he is and ever so slightly a hardcore-sociopath, so she encourages him to kill the current king; he does, then feels immensely guilty because kings are 'chosen by God' so he has committed what he believes to be an 'unnatural' act. Macbeth becomes king and plans to have Banquo and his son killed by murderers. The get Banquo, but his son (Fleance, pronounced 'Flee-anse') escapes. Later at a feast, Banquo's ghost rocks up to scare Macbeth, which is largely interpreted to be a manifestation of his guilt, and foreshadows his eventual madness. The witches come back and tell Macbeth he can't be killed by any man who's born from a woman's lady parts, and that he'll be king until trees can walk - he takes this as assurance that he'll be alive and king forever, but madness and guilt have set in and begin to take their toll. Meanwhile his enemy Macduff is ammasing an army, so Macbeth has his family killed just because. Lady M, also wracked with guilt, sleepwalks and says some wonderfully poetic stuff about having bloodstains on her hands, then dies (possibly... this is debatable - she disappears, let's put it that way.) Macduff and his soldiers sneak up on the castle using tree branches to disguise their numbers (ie. trees are walking, hint hint!) Then:: PLOT TWIST: Macduff was a caesarean and not "of woman born" technically speaking, so he kills Macbeth.
The biggest question you're going to have to answer is 'Who is responsible for the tragedy?' to which my response is usually the metaphor of a weed growing; the witches sowed the seed of jealousy and greed, Macbeth's character was the perfect environment for it to grow, and for his ambition to turn ugly, then Lady Macbeth tendered the plant until it became an all-consuming brambles that destroyed pretty much everyone.
Don't worry if you don't instantly grasp the entire texts; most schools do a read through in class so people aren't lost, and there's no shame in using study guides for texts like these. Or any texts really. But let me know if there are any lines in particular that don't make sense... I've studied this text three times now and my copy is so full of annotations it's coming apart at the seams and I think there's more written on post-it-notes than there is in the actual play  ::) #Englishlyf

I'm not sure what this prompt means "Brooklyn is in essence an exploration of place"
Ergh, this is one of those 'The text is about _____' kinds of prompts that VCAA are really fond of  >:( They're kinda boring and hard to write on, but it can be boiled down to 'Discuss the exploration of place in Brooklyn' if that makes it easier.
BUT this is one of those instances where italicisation is critical!
IMPORTANT: For anyone studying: Brooklyn, Cloudstreet, Henry IV, Mabo, Medea, Stasiland, or Wuthering Heights: There is a world of difference between the title of your text, and what the title refers to!!!
VCAA have tried to trick people in the past with this.

In the example given here, think about how different your contention would have to be if you were arguing
- the place Brooklyn is an exploration of place, meaning that the characters there are able to explore the physical place and come to some sort of conclusion about their identities
vs.
- the novel Brooklyn has 'exploring place' as one of its key themes (which, for those who've read it means you'd be discussing Enniscorthy as well as Brooklyn, the place.)
So the difference between: 'Brooklyn' is an exploration of place and Brooklyn is an exploration of place is potentially huge.

I'm assuming it's the former case here, so you should structure your discussion accordingly :)

Make it what you want it to mean. As long as it is structured well and obviously relates to the text still. There is often questions out there like this which allow you to show your own interpretation of the prompt and show the examiner (or whoever) an alternate discussion . Just make sure to define the key terms the way you see them and are going to explore them :)
I mostly agree, but be careful not to 'topic dodge' by going off on too distant a tangent.Provided you're working within the confines of the prompt, you're fine, and totally free to define words however you like.

For language analysis.
When they say to analysis the writer's different approach. what does it mean by approach??.
Thanks you.
if you understand what i mean
Do you mean when you're given multiple articles and have to contrast their approaches? Because this just means discussing their contentions and the means by which they express them; ie. 'Where Author A contends that ___, Author B, by contrast, argues that ____' and 'Author A uses inclusive language in order to... However, Author B uses...' etc.

For a text response essay.
for every evidence you provide, such as a specific scene, how much explanation do you need to give it. cause teacher said i have tendency to not explain things in enough detail before i move on to next evidence.
Also for the end of year exam are we required to have multiple interpretation for text response and if so how would you implement it in.Also do we need social, historical context for end of year text response essay to.
thanks
a) you need to give as much explanation as is necessary. You can assume your assessor has read the text, but if you jump around too much then it can get confusing. Best to defer to your teacher here because they'll be more familiar with your writing than I am.
b) you should try to acknowledge different interpretations where you can, but this isn't big part of the criteria. It mainly just means not being too definitive with your writing (ie. don't say 'This scene proves that the character is jealous' - there is no 'proof' in English.)
c) no T.R. essay has to have socio-historical stuff, but it can help in certain contexts. It depends on the prompt, mostly. If you're asked to discuss a character's relationship or motivations, then spending ages talking about 1950's America or Jacobean England isn't wholly useful; whereas if you're told to discuss the author's views and values, or look at what the text says about society, then showing some awareness of the life and times of the author might be a good idea.
Just don't get too far away from the text and the prompt :)

stockstamp

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: 0
  • School Grad Year: 2015
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #279 on: April 05, 2015, 09:56:48 pm »
0
Should it matter if you branch out from an essay topic a bit?

I'll give some background to this question - we recently completed our first English SAC at school, and I received a lower mark than I was hoping for, and to be honest, lower than I expected (before you write me off as arrogant, please listen read!).

Below is a fairly generic representation of the topic we were given.

"Event A is driven solely by cause B. To what extent do you agree?
         
             To which I responded with something like this...
  1. Cause B is influential - here's why it's influential - here's how it came about
  2. Though Cause B was influential, Cause B itself was actually the product of something much broader, which due to it's impact on Event A, is of a much higher significance than Cause B
  3. Both of my previous paragraphs are relevant, but here's what I think actually drove Event A

As you can see, the first two paragraphs stuck fairly closely to the topic, and made specific mention of what the topic included, whereas the 3rd paragraph was entirely original - I didn't completely agree with the topic ("To what extent do you agree? ..."), therefore I wrote about what I actually thought, even though it was different to where the topic would lead you.

(If this is a bit ambiguous, I can provide the actual essay topic, and what I actually wrote about if necessary.)

Fundamentally, my question is this: Could that third paragraph be a problem?

The  feedback we got for the SAC was pathetic - all we received were numbers.
The Criteria: (each out of 10)
  1. Close analysis and understanding of the chosen text             9
  2. Ability to interpret text in response to the task                       9
  3. Control of the conventions of the English language                10

Yes, this doesn't look like a bad mark on the surface, but a lot of students got 26+/30 who don't write anything original, and don't usually show much depth of thought. Point and click. (This is not an assumption - I have proof read their work in the past) Typically, Criteria 1 and 2 are my strengths! (based on feedback from past few years) I'm better at thinking about, and exploring a topic than using long and fancy vocab - yet I lost marks for the first 2, and actually got full marks for criteria 3. Both my second and third (especially third) paragraphs were original - something the examiners supposedly look for - no one else would have had the 'same' ideas.

English is meant to reward people who think, and my frustration is that I believe thinking cost me marks here - my argument was original, it was relevant and showed logic and depth of thought. But the marks I got lead me to believe that I was penalised because I branched out from the topic. According to my markers, I didn't 'interpret' the prompt properly.

Again, if specifics are required - either because you don't understand what I'm asking, or because you're sceptical (I'm not concerned if you are) - I will provide.


What is your opinion?
2014: Methods [40] (neck myself)

I'm here to avoid homework

http://i.imgur.com/1tf3V.gif

JackSonSmith

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 288
  • "Failure is part of nature, success is man-made"
  • Respect: +4
  • School Grad Year: 2015
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #280 on: April 06, 2015, 10:52:04 am »
0
Should it matter if you branch out from an essay topic a bit?

I'll give some background to this question - we recently completed our first English SAC at school, and I received a lower mark than I was hoping for, and to be honest, lower than I expected (before you write me off as arrogant, please listen read!).

Below is a fairly generic representation of the topic we were given.

"Event A is driven solely by cause B. To what extent do you agree?
         
             To which I responded with something like this...
  1. Cause B is influential - here's why it's influential - here's how it came about
  2. Though Cause B was influential, Cause B itself was actually the product of something much broader, which due to it's impact on Event A, is of a much higher significance than Cause B
  3. Both of my previous paragraphs are relevant, but here's what I think actually drove Event A

As you can see, the first two paragraphs stuck fairly closely to the topic, and made specific mention of what the topic included, whereas the 3rd paragraph was entirely original - I didn't completely agree with the topic ("To what extent do you agree? ..."), therefore I wrote about what I actually thought, even though it was different to where the topic would lead you.

(If this is a bit ambiguous, I can provide the actual essay topic, and what I actually wrote about if necessary.)

Fundamentally, my question is this: Could that third paragraph be a problem?

The  feedback we got for the SAC was pathetic - all we received were numbers.
The Criteria: (each out of 10)
  1. Close analysis and understanding of the chosen text             9
  2. Ability to interpret text in response to the task                       9
  3. Control of the conventions of the English language                10

Yes, this doesn't look like a bad mark on the surface, but a lot of students got 26+/30 who don't write anything original, and don't usually show much depth of thought. Point and click. (This is not an assumption - I have proof read their work in the past) Typically, Criteria 1 and 2 are my strengths! (based on feedback from past few years) I'm better at thinking about, and exploring a topic than using long and fancy vocab - yet I lost marks for the first 2, and actually got full marks for criteria 3. Both my second and third (especially third) paragraphs were original - something the examiners supposedly look for - no one else would have had the 'same' ideas.

English is meant to reward people who think, and my frustration is that I believe thinking cost me marks here - my argument was original, it was relevant and showed logic and depth of thought. But the marks I got lead me to believe that I was penalised because I branched out from the topic. According to my markers, I didn't 'interpret' the prompt properly.

Again, if specifics are required - either because you don't understand what I'm asking, or because you're sceptical (I'm not concerned if you are) - I will provide.


What is your opinion?

I would be very interested in reading your essay if you have it.
2014: Psychology
2015: English | Methods | Chinese SL | Specialist | Physics 

2016: Bachelor of Commerce - The University of Melbourne

Start where you are. Use what you have.  Do what you can. – Arthur Ashe

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #281 on: April 06, 2015, 11:05:59 am »
+4
Should it matter if you branch out from an essay topic a bit?
Theoretically: no; so long as you're careful.

I'll give some background to this question - we recently completed our first English SAC at school, and I received a lower mark than I was hoping for, and to be honest, lower than I expected (before you write me off as arrogant, please listen read!).

Below is a fairly generic representation of the topic we were given.

"Event A is driven solely by cause B. To what extent do you agree?
For a prompt like this, I'd say you're meant to question absolutes like "solely." An essay that just takes this statement as fact and provides evidence to support it would be quite weak, regardless of how well the discussion was conducted - it'd still be reductive. Having said that, it may depend on the circumstances, so could you let me know which text & prompt you were dealing with.
(I know I tell people to minimise the text-specific nature of their inquiries, but this is one instance that is highly dependent on each individual case :P)

To which I responded with something like this...
  1. Cause B is influential - here's why it's influential - here's how it came about
  2. Though Cause B was influential, Cause B itself was actually the product of something much broader, which due to it's impact on Event A, is of a much higher significance than Cause B
  3. Both of my previous paragraphs are relevant, but here's what I think actually drove Event A
This seems safe, but it could have come across as contradictory if you didn't have a clear, overarching contention. The trouble with 'challenge' paragraphs is that they can subvert your discussion if you don't do them properly; they're meant to give the illusion of challenging your points whilst in reality strengthening your contention.
eg.
Prompt: The tragic downfall of Charlie the Octopus was solely the result of his pride.
Para 1: Charlie's pride is dangerous - here's how it affects him and other characters.
Para 2: His pride is very complex - here's how and why it came about.
Para 3: The tragedy is actually due to lots of different things, not just his pride.
Contention: ?

A structure like this doesn't allow for much complexity because you're limiting yourself to three separate discussions without giving yourself much chance to tie them all together.

As you can see, the first two paragraphs stuck fairly closely to the topic, and made specific mention of what the topic included, whereas the 3rd paragraph was entirely original - I didn't completely agree with the topic ("To what extent do you agree? ..."), therefore I wrote about what I actually thought, even though it was different to where the topic would lead you.
If this was the case, you probably should have been challenging the prompt from the start rather than going along with it for half an essay and then introducing a contrary point. You are allowed to disagree with the prompt*in the exam

Fundamentally, my question is this: Could that third paragraph be a problem?
Yes, but it's more likely that your contention was problematic rather than one specific paragraph letting you down. (This is just conjecture for the moment, so just based on the plan you've outlined) I think you may have lost sight of the implications of the prompt and just been focusing on individual arguments.

The  feedback we got for the SAC was pathetic - all we received were numbers.
The Criteria: (each out of 10)
  1. Close analysis and understanding of the chosen text             9
  2. Ability to interpret text in response to the task                       9
  3. Control of the conventions of the English language                10
Urgh, I hate it when teachers do this; I feel your pain, man. If possible, maybe sit down with your teacher and ask him/her whether there are any specific areas where you could improve? Most will be open to this, and it's a good way to show them you're committed to improving.
If not, it'll be up to you (/ATAR Notes :) ) to find these areas of weakness.
   1. If you've lost a mark here, it's probably the result of some minor interpretational errors throughout your piece. 'Errors in interpretation' is a kind of strange phrase because you'd assume it means 'you thought this character died and they didn't' or 'you thought these characters were in love when they weren't' but more often it's about precision of wording. If there are two characters having a minor disagreement and I call it a 'fight' or 'clash,' this can fall under the umbrella of being an 'interpretational error' even though what's actually wrong is my word choice. Do this a couple of times in a row, and it all adds up to one mark lost (so you may have to pinpoint several 'mistakes' rather than there just being one easily identifiable paragraph/sentence where the mark was compromised.)
   2. *facepalm* I hate vague criteria so much... This is essentially the same as the first, though I'd say this has more to do with how you conduct your discussion in relation to the prompt. So if, in your teacher's opinion, you've gone off-topic or you lacked a cohesive focus, then that could've put you on the 9/10 side rather than the 10/10.

Yes, this doesn't look like a bad mark on the surface, but a lot of students got 26+/30 who don't write anything original, and don't usually show much depth of thought. Point and click. (This is not an assumption - I have proof read their work in the past)
That sounds frustrating and unjust, but short of some Freaky-Friday-teacher-student-brain-swap, there's nothing you can do to change other people's marks. Most of the time, students like this get the marks they deserve at the end of the year when exam criteria comes into play, so I wouldn't worry about it for now. The only thing that's in your control is your own score, so just do what you can to beat your own record rather than other peoples'.

Typically, Criteria 1 and 2 are my strengths! (based on feedback from past few years) I'm better at thinking about, and exploring a topic than using long and fancy vocab - yet I lost marks for the first 2, and actually got full marks for criteria 3. Both my second and third (especially third) paragraphs were original - something the examiners supposedly look for - no one else would have had the 'same' ideas.
Firstly, your strengths will likely fluctuate, and whilst it's good you're aware of what you're confident in, you won't always be losing marks in the same area every time. Secondly, yes the examiners look for originality (and yes, your method is definitely preferable to the passive 'Yes, because A B and C' approach a lot of other students take) but that's more of a secondary component of the criteria. No. 1 is RELEVANCE! Id what you're writing isn't relevant, you could be doing absolutely everything else perfectly but that wouldn't matter.

My English teacher said he once marked an exam piece on Shakespeare's Richard III, the first line of which was 'Richard III is a tragic play written by William Shakespeare, just like Macbeth' and from there on, it was a Macbeth essay. He said it was the best Macbeth essay he'd ever read, but it was still on the wrong text. From memory he ended up taking it to the Chief Assessor like 'wtf do I do with this?' See- the technical criteria VCAA operate on contains things like 'ability to use language appropriate to the task' and objectively speaking, the student did that perfectly. But relevance rules everything, and that kid got a 1/10 cause at least he got the author right.

Thirdly, you have no idea whether or not other people will have the 'same' ideas; don't rely on this to boost you up. Maybe your class is comprised of sheep who never think independently, but that won't mean the rest of the state will be. Maybe they wrote totally different ideas, but they did it better. Even though you're being compared to the state's standards at the end of the year, for now and for the sake of self-improvement, best to put other people's capabilities out of your mind and concentrate on your own work in a vacuum.

English is meant to reward people who think
English is meant to do a lot of things. Unfortunately English is run by English teachers who are flawed at best and downright petty at worst. I'm not saying this to make you cynical or pessimistic, but you need to be aware of this subject's... subjectivity. For the most part, if you're hitting the criteria then you're safe, but you'll still be relying on the assessors to recognise what you're doing is right.

Given we're now in the 7th year of this study design, VCAA have essentially weeded out any ridiculously biased exam markers and the standards are pretty clear now, but if you really want to do well: you have to think like an assessor, not like whoever wrote the criteria.

and my frustration is that I believe thinking cost me marks here - my argument was original, it was relevant and showed logic and depth of thought. But the marks I got lead me to believe that I was penalised because I branched out from the topic. According to my markers, I didn't 'interpret' the prompt properly. Again, if specifics are required - either because you don't understand what I'm asking, or because you're sceptical (I'm not concerned if you are) - I will provide.
If you want a second/exam-based opinion I'm happy to offer one, but the most helpful thing to do at this juncture would be to talk to your teacher/markers whenever possible. Even if it turns out what you're doing is completely acceptable from an exam point of view, you'll still have three or four more in-house SACs to complete where you're writing for your teachers, not the examiners. It appears you're in the unfortunate situation of needing to learn two ways of writing; one that hits your teacher's preferences, and an objectively 'safe' way to write for the end of the year. Luckily the two shouldn't be too radically different (your teacher hasn't given you fours when you deserved tens) but you'll still need to split your mindset between these two modes of writing.

And even if your teacher is an exam marker - no teacher marks SACs the same way they mark exams. For SACs they're trying to mould how you write, and are allowed to let their inherent biases come to the surface. In the exam, they can't afford to do this.

Let's say you had one of those weirdly restrictive teachers who said 'unless you use 7 quotes per paragraph I'll never give you full marks.' In the SACs they could enforce this, but when they're marking exam papers, there are different standards. Every essay is marked at least twice by two different people, so if the marks are too far apart, it goes to a third assessor and they take the closest of the scores.
eg.
Suppose I wrote an essay that one teacher (A) gave a 5/10 because it pissed her off for some reason, while another teacher (B) gave it a 10/10 because I'm wonderful. My essay would then get sent to a third assessor (C,) who agrees with B that I'm wonderful and gives me a 9/10. My score would end up being 19/20; assessor A's name goes on a 'watchlist' of sorts, and if they're continually assigning suspicious or questionable marks, they're kindly asked to step down from their role as an exam marker. Like I said, most of these wacky markers have been gotten rid of over the years, so nowadays you won't see much disparity, but it still pays to be aware of the process.

You certainly seem like a competent writer, and I'm sure the rankings/SAC scores will even themselves out in the end, so I'd say don't panic too much. Just be clever about how you approach your SACs and be aware of your audience. Some subtle conversations with your teacher about what they like to see wouldn't go astray either :)

But thank you so much for being specific with your question! This is way easier to respond to than 'I only got 28/30! Whyyyy?'

If you want me to be more specific, let me know what that prompt was and I can deconstruct it with you.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 01:22:13 pm by literally lauren »

izzywantsa97

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Respect: 0
  • School: MG
  • School Grad Year: 2015
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #282 on: April 06, 2015, 02:03:52 pm »
0
When language analysis articles contain quotes, are we supposed to analyse the persuasive devices within that quote?
2014: Methods (41)
2015: English (50), Accounting (45), Chemistry (49), Physics (42), Spec (36)
ATAR 99.65
ps moss is great

stockstamp

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Respect: 0
  • School Grad Year: 2015
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #283 on: April 06, 2015, 02:34:38 pm »
0
This is outstanding feedback!
After reading it I'm beginning to think that perhaps my biggest problem (among others - including irrelevance) was not having a clearly defined contention. That's essentially because I didn't really have a one-sided view. Considering your feedback, I would say that my SAC did not deserve full marks - but when considering the reasonably high marks that some other students got, I honestly believe I was marked much more stringently.

Usually when I write, I land somewhere in the middle of the given essay topic. Which is sort of what happened in the SAC. But would this be a problem generally - do you need to ultimately agree/disagree with a prompt?

In response to your suggestion about going through it with my teacher - I will do that, but it will be useless. All my teacher will do is point out some areas that she thinks don't have good enough expression. To which I will respond by reminding her that I got full marks for expression....
I actually asked her if I could take the essay to another teacher (who I've had in previous years) - she didn't allow it....

I think at this stage it's probably best to give a specific example; the SAC we completed was done under test conditions in class (though we were given the topic early), so all I have is a rough draft; Although the ideas were essentially the same, the writing changed a lot in test conditions, and the draft itself is very rough.

However, I have an essay characteristically very similar that was done as coursework, but not a SAC. The feedback I got for that suggests a similar issue - perhaps there's a slight irrelevance in my writing, but certainly there is no clear overall contention. I landed on both sides of the argument.
But once again, I would say the strength of this essay is that it's original, and explores the topic with a bit of depth.

This lost marks for the same criteria, and I'm not certainly not saying it deserved full marks, but it suffered similar scrutiny. I'll include it below.

P.S. I understand that you've already vested a lot of time into answering my question so if you don't want to respond then by all means don't. The feedback you already gave was immensely useful.
But - I once heard the almighty Christopher Hitchens say "We should pursue this, we've barely got our trousers off". So if you're feeling a bit that way, my essay is below :)


Medea Text Response
Medea suggests that the world is depressing and chaotic, where evil triumphs and innocence suffers.
To what extent do you agree?


The world created in Euripides’ Medea is one where there is an irrefutable presence of evil and suffering; darkness pervades the play at many points, but whether or not it is the dominant characteristic of the play is less certain. Although Medea is ultimately triumphant in her quest for vengeance on Jason, the idea that ‘evil’ itself is triumphant in the overall sense of the play at its conclusion is much less true. The evidence for this is that despite the turmoil of the play, there is still an obvious existence of love, compassion and grief; emotions which are polarised against evil. Furthermore, while Medea herself is the primary instigator of the most tragic event in the play, she could also be described as an innocent victim, for it was Jason’s betrayal of her that allowed for the ensuing evil in the play. Essentially, this could be attributed to that fact that Euripides appears to have intentionally constructed a somewhat depressing and unjust world within Medea – an idea which can be supported in multiple forms.

Medea is perhaps the only character within Euripides’ tragedy who could be described as triumphant. While all of the characters (including Medea) experience suffering, directly or indirectly, Medea is the only character who actually achieved something. In her sycophantic interactions with Aegeus, Medea secured a safe haven she could flee to after committing her crimes – something of a minor triumph – and her primary triumph; seeking revenge on Jason, the need for which drove her actions throughout the entire play. Jason’s exclamation that “you [Medea] have destroyed me, lady!” [1310] is the moment that ultimately confirms Medea’s triumph. To suggest, however, that because Medea is triumphant, therefore evil is triumphant, implies that Medea is wholly evil, which may not necessarily be true. It was revealed very early in the play that pertaining to Medea was the capacity for acts of an evil nature. She successfully “persuaded Pelias’ daughters to kill their father” [11], she betrayed her own family prior to the beginning of the play and the nurse’s repeated reference to “that savage temperament of hers” [105] are all reasons that the audience may judge her as innately evil. The strongest evidence within the play that seems to suggest Euripides intended for Medea to be perceived as evil is when the chorus become polarised against her (something rather unusual to Greek tragedy) and “beg [her] not to murder [her] children” – a statement that likely reflects Euripides’ view. Yet in spite of this, it is also reasonable for one to regard Medea as not evil, but rather a victim of unforgiving circumstances paired with an overly passionate personality. In the moments leading up to the tragic climax, Medea appears to have a moment of clarity where she exclaims “Ah, stop, my heart, do not do this deed!” [1057] and describes her plan as a ‘terrible’ crime. She continues in this episode of compassion to even comment on how she “loved to hug them!” [1057]. The revelation in this scene is that Medea may not in fact be inherently evil; rather she was traumatised to the extent that she was driven solely by passion. In her own words, “passion is master of my reason” [1079]. So although whether or not Medea should be described as intrinsically evil is decided by the audience, it is clear that the suggestion that she is triumphant is not paired with the statement that ‘evil’ is triumphant.

While most of the characters of Medea are not portrayed as particularly honourable, it is the vehement nature of Medea that allows her to potentially be labelled as evil. And though Medea is the character who experiences triumph, the force of ‘evil’ itself is not triumphant; the contrary is in fact much more probable. Evil is present in a multitude of scenes throughout the play, but presence alone is not enough to evil to be the leading thematic characteristic in the play. The presence of love is far more prominent. Medea’s methods of exacting vengeance are entirely dependent on the reality that love exists between Jason and his children, Jason and Medea and Creon and his daughter; if it did not exist Medea would not be able to cause any emotional suffering. At the moment where Medea confronts Jason, the justification he provides for his actions is the claim that he “wanted to raise my sons in a manner worthy of my house” [562]. Many audiences would doubt the sincerity of this claim, but the sheer anguish and grief found in his exclaims of “O children, my dear, dear children!” [1396] after their death might in fact be sufficient enough evidence to validate his apparent wishes of acting for the benefit of his children, regardless of whether or not selfishness was involved. Whichever perspective one takes however, the conclusion of the play alone makes it undeniable that Jason loved his children. This sense of fraternal love, although it lapses for the majority of the play, is also shown to exist in Medea, despite the horrific nature of her actions. The driving feature of Medea was her passion, which is why this love appeared to be so repressed, but in the moments where Medea’s passion receded to a less influential feature, Euripides showed it still existed. “O how I love to hug them” [1075] she cries in this moment. Love is also to be found in Medea through Creon, and the love he bears for his daughter, which is so strong that upon seeing her death Creon is so devastated that he wishes he could “share your [Glauce’s] death” [1210]; it pained him to the extent that he could not even bear to live. The final obvious reference to love in the play is the love Medea supposedly bore for Jason, but realistically, any feelings she may have once had should be dismissed as a mere extension of her passion, far removed from the concept of deep and genuine love. Yet even with that truth in mind, the sincere despair found within the statements of Creon and Jason display an inherent sense of strong morality and the capability for love and compassion. Without these fundamental values the play could scarcely be labelled a tragedy; they are essential to evoking an emotional response from the audience and their overall relevance effectively disproves the idea that ‘evil’ is triumphant. As a force, the evil in Medea is countermanded by the overwhelming evidence for love in combination with the sense of rancour the audience would regard Medea (undisputably the most ‘evil’ character) with.

The primary feature of Medea that leaves absolutely no ambiguity is that of suffering, and specifically, the unjust suffering of the innocent. The suffering of innocents takes place in the form of Medea’s children, where she murders them out of her own selfish desire for revenge. This was the incident that ultimately polarised both the audience and the chorus against her; the children were innocent in all sense and their murder was a crime that Medea herself described as ‘terrible’. Yet the sense of injustice aligned with these actions permeates the entire play to the extent that these murders may in fact simply have been the materialisation of the generally chaotic and depressing world created by Euripides. The children’s death were but one of many examples of innocence suffering; some would perceive Glauce and Creon as innocent, but furthermore and most significantly, Medea herself may be a victim of this dark world. At the opening of the play, the Nurse explained that “Jason has betrayed my lady [Medea] and his own children for a princess’ bed” [18], causing Medea to feel “the sting of injustice” [110]. In Medea’s acrimonious feministic speech she highlighted the suffering of women as a result of the underlying sexism Greece. The ancient Greek societal paradigm of the ideal woman was one where they were forced to take “a master to play the tyrant with [their] bodies” []; a concept that modern audiences would recognise as appalling. Aside from these specific examples of where innocents suffer, Euripides provided several comments that essentially prove that he intended for the world of Medea to be somewhat depressing. The seemingly pessimistic statement given by the messenger (who existed purely to provide commentary on the play) – “When fortune’s tide flows towards him, one man may surpass another in prosperity, but you should not call him happy” [1231] - suggests that Euripides may have been deliberately attempting to remove happiness from the play; suffering of innocents and the depressing characteristics were an inevitability, designed by Euripides. This may have been done simply to further dramatize the play for the benefit of the audience, or possibly it was a reflection of Euripides’ personal views. Regardless of the reason for the depressing nature of the play, the innocent do suffer in many forms.

Ultimately, it is clear that the world described by Euripides in Medea is one where suffering, evil and darkness have a significant presence. The suggestion that evil is triumphant, however, essentially depends on the interpretation of the context of evil. If ‘evil’ refers specifically to Medea, then it is triumphant, as Medea is the only character who experiences anything that could be described as a triumph. If ‘evil’ is a more generic reference to the concept of ‘evil’ as a force though, it is far from triumphant. Though the play is characteristically dark and depressing, the power of love still seeps through much of the play.

2014: Methods [40] (neck myself)

I'm here to avoid homework

http://i.imgur.com/1tf3V.gif

literally lauren

  • Administrator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Resident English/Lit Nerd
  • Respect: +1423
Re: VCE English Question Thread
« Reply #284 on: April 06, 2015, 10:57:07 pm »
+3
When language analysis articles contain quotes, are we supposed to analyse the persuasive devices within that quote?
You can discuss the fact that the author chooses to include a certain quote, but in terms of conducting an analysis on what the author of the quote was intending, then no.

eg. Article by Author A: In fact, many experts would agree with this assertion, such as Person B who was quoted in The Financial Review as saying "this is a great idea; only morons disagree!"
Your analysis: Author A invokes the opinion of Person B who A describes as an "expert" in order to accentuate the inferred accuracy of the claim that...
Wrong analysis: Author A includes a quote from person B who uses certain rhetorical devices in order to get his point across, like attacking dissenters as "morons" which compels readers to...

-

...considering the reasonably high marks that some other students got, I honestly believe I was marked much more stringently.
This might have been intentional. Again, I'm not your teacher so I don't know what standards they're using, but I do know that not every teacher applies the same objective end-of-year standards to all students. Some people benefit from ridiculously high (even unattainable?) standards as this encourages them to work harder; others prefer to be given credit for every minor improvement they make in order to show them what they need to do to change the mark. (Basically one group of people will prefer to get 6/10 all year from an exam perspective and then gradually work up to 10/10, whereas others like getting 10/10 from a March/April perspective, and then having the criteria and standards change as they do.) To give your teacher the benefit of the doubt, perhaps s/he ismarking you by different standards, but is doing this deliberately for the sake of your improvement  ???
 
Usually when I write, I land somewhere in the middle of the given essay topic. Which is sort of what happened in the SAC. But would this be a problem generally - do you need to ultimately agree/disagree with a prompt?
Think of it like a spectrum:
AGREE l--------*--------l--------*--------l DISAGREE
You don't want to be at either end of the scale, because that makes your essay too reductive (there are never objectively true or false statements when it comes to interpretation: you couldn't say 'Medea's fate is completely and utterly attributable to her inability to forgive; nothing more, nothing less' as though that was a blanket truth about the text with no exceptions.)
But you also don't want to fence-sit! ie. have an interpretation that's right in the middle of the spectrum, because it comes across as noncommittal (eg. 'Medea's fate is slightly sometimes because of this but also lots of other factors but she deserves it, but she doesn't necessarily, but Jason's to blame, but maybe he isn't...' etc. etc.) <-- that's an extremely oversimplified example obviously, but that's how a contention can seem.
Ideally you want to be at the (*) locations where you've got a clearly definied focus but you're not reduced to being blind to alternate points of view.

In response to your suggestion about going through it with my teacher - I will do that, but it will be useless.
Do it anyway.
a) because even if it's a superficial gesture that you don't learn anything from, at least it makes it seem like you're dogged enough to take time out of your life to speak to her about your approach and
b) if you ask the right questions in the right way, it will be at least somewhat useful.

All my teacher will do is point out some areas that she thinks don't have good enough expression. To which I will respond by reminding her that I got full marks for expression.... I actually asked her if I could take the essay to another teacher (who I've had in previous years) - she didn't allow it....
Trust me, I totes know where you're coming from on the 'unhelpful teacher' front; sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and be a tad manipulative. Without sounding too judgmental, is there a chance your teacher took your request to get a second opinion as an insult about her own impartiality or competence? There is a world of difference between approaching a teacher and saying 'Hey Miss, I know I've done fairly well on this SAC but I was wondering if you could clarify a few points for me... you said I've used poor expression in these places: do you have any strategies or examples so I can do this better?' and 'Hey Miss, I don't think this SAC mark is what I deserve; mind if I go next door and consult with this other teacher who I like better?' I'm sure you weren't that obvious, but still, think about the questions you're asking. (Make them as specific as the ones you're asking here - because these are spot on!) Your first priority is remaining on your teacher's good side; your second priority is getting her to answer your questions and help you... but you can't get the second without the first.

I won't correct your whole essay for the sake of time, but just some general notes:
Medea suggests that the world is depressing and chaotic, where evil triumphs and innocence suffers.
To what extent do you agree?
Hmm... this is clunkily worded...
Okay, the way I see it - it comes down to clauses. You could either view this as:
1) Medea suggests the world is depressing and chaotic whereby evil triumphs and innocence suffers
or
2) Medea suggests the world is depressing and chaotic because evil triumphs and innocence suffers.
Frustratingly, both would be feasible from a grammatical point of view, but I think the first meaning is semantically more sound. So where you've interpreted this as conveying a causal link between A and B, the prompt is in fact just one big statement about the world of Medea, ie instead of [world=depressing/chaotic] because of [the triumph of evil and the suffering of innocence]; it's [world=depressing/chaotic/evil-triumph/innocent-suffering]
Does that make sense?

You also seem to be able to use definitive language (eg. 'The evidence for this is that...') without having a very definitive contention which is why your teacher may keep harping on about expression even though you're getting full marks in that criteria. And I know you said this was a rough draft, but I can understand an even-handed assessor docking a few points for expression here and there.

The criteria are not independent! Sometimes screwing up one can have a carry-over effect, and sometimes doing one thing wrong can hide a whole lot of other problems under the surface. This is most often the case for issues of expression; they're the easiest thing in the world for teachers to notice because they don't have to pay attention to what you're conveying - just the grammar, spelling, and syntax you've used to convey it. So you could get a whole page full of corrections regarding expression and think 'oh cool, I'm doing everything else right, I've just gotta fix my shitty writing.' Wrong. That's just the first 'level' you have to address before you start dealing with all the other issues that crop up.

This is what I meant when I said 'you won't always be losing marks in the same area every time.' Not only will your approach vary for every prompt you write on, but you'll also be demonstrating different skills or imperfections each time, so don't be too perturbed if you're suddenly losing marks in an area when you weren't before.

Incidentally: your school might enforce different rules for now, but there's no need to reference page or line numbers in your exam :)

The third paragraph here seems a little out-of-focus, almost as though it's just a discussion of innocence in the text generally and not about how the suffering of innocents pertains to the depressing or chaotic nature of the world of the text (hence why you should always be rounding your points back to the WHOLE prompt rather than just a single aspect of it.)

But once again, I would say the strength of this essay is that it's original, and explores the topic with a bit of depth.
Relevance > Originality every time. You don't want to focus too much on originality because after a point it just gets risky. There's no requirement to blow the assessor's mind with a never-before-seen interpretation; it's enough to talk about the prompt with sophistication and in a way that flows logically. Based on the few Medea essays I've read so far, I'd say your interpretation is pretty standard (which is not in any way a bad thing; it just means that you won't necessarily stand out on that level alone.) And you shouldn't want to. The markers can't give you full credit for all the little things you're doing right if you've totally shell-shocked them with a world view they've never considered before, so rather than reaching for the stars, think of your English essays like neat little criteria-fulfilling devices that are being programmed to do everything the assessor wants. Originality is a very small part of that very big picture.