Hey!
From what I've seen on the Discussion Group and meme pages (which aren't particularly reliable sources but that's beside the point), Section I for Paper 1 seemed pretty problematic with the mark allocations and the length of the texts themselves. The lack of a reflection and specification of the imaginative form for Section III of Paper 2 was also a shocking move. I did say in my lecture this and last year that I anticipated NESA will pull that at some point because it's not impossible but I didn't expect it to happen for the 2020 cohort. I don't think the paper was that controversial myself but a lot of people seem to think it was yikes. I think I would have been furious as a Year 12 student doing the syllabus if my strongest and weakest areas (which were actually creative writing and short answers respectively) both had problematic aspects to them.
I also hear from my Standard students that the questions for Paper 2 were similar to the CSSA Trials so I'm interested to see whether NESA will deal with this in any way There's an article about it on SMH here. We'll see how it all plays out in due time though
Hmm, I honestly couldn't see a problem in Section 1 of Paper 1, though I can see why some people were upset by Mod C on Paper 2. I guess the syllabus does say that students must learn imaginative, discursive, persuasive and informative text types, so it was a perfectly fair play by NESA. Besides, the sample paper released by NESA had a question without a reflection. It was just one of three questions released for Mod C, so surely that was accepted as a highly probable question.
I think it's just the majority of teachers went about it the wrong way, teaching narrowly and focusing only on one form combined with a reflection. What do you guys think? Wouldn't mind a debate haha.