2000 HSC Notes from the Examination Centre English

2000 HSC Notes from the

Examination Centre

English

 Board of Studies 2001

Published by

Board of Studies NSW

GPO Box 5300

Sydney NSW 2001

Australia

Tel: (02) 9367 8111

Fax: (02) 9262 6270

Internet: http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au

Schools, colleges or tertiary institutions may reproduce

this document, either in part or full, for bona fide study

purposes within the school or college.

ISBN 0731348281

Job Number 200121

English

2 Unit General

Paper 1 – Uses of English and Topic Areas

Section I – Reading Task (20 marks)

Generally candidates were prepared for the style of the paper and the type of

questions to be asked. Candidates need to be aware of the allocation as a guide to the

length and complexity of the response required.

Question 1(a) (2 marks)

The question appeared straightforward but many candidates did not acknowledge that

there was a change in the writer’s response to finding the seal and identified only a

single response, often supported with either an explanation or quote. Better responses

identified both responses and supported with evidence.

Question 1(b) (6 marks)

Almost all candidates were able to identify the writer’s responses to the seal. Most

candidates supported their statements with quotations and were able to identify the

literary device involved. The better responses showed clearly the link between the

language and the response, commenting on the purpose and effect of the language.

Question 1(c) (4 marks)

Most candidates responded by identifying 2 or more relevant language types giving an

example of each. Better responses were able to identify a difference in the level of

formality used in different sections of the passage.

Question 1(d) (8 marks)

While some candidates handled the question well, many responses were far too

general, lacking support and insight. Many candidates felt obliged to cover all the

suggested language features often producing comments about structure and intended

audience, which were generic and/or repetitious. Candidates had trouble discussing

the effects of the use of various language techniques. Better responses went beyond

simply listing techniques. The skills of compare and contrast may need to be

reinforced with candidates.

Section II – Common Writing Task (20 marks)

The 2000 Common Writing task required candidates to adopt the persona of a

character in the stimulus photograph and reflect on the significance of the photograph

in the form of a journal entry.

The question was an effective discriminator as the more able candidates were able to

reflect, using an engaging and credible voice, with an awareness of past and present.

The weaker responses showed an over-reliance on narrative and recount, often with

inconsistent tense and voice. The narrative element of the weaker responses was

evident in the many pedestrian “Titanic” and “WW2 refugee” type responses.

The Candidates

The photo offered a wide range of possible student responses. Candidates were

sensitive to the circumstances shown in the photo, however, some aimed for

originality at the expense of relevance to the photo.

The most popular approach tended to be a migrant reflecting on the emotional

experience of leaving home; however the question did allow for some unique

responses. Only a small range of candidates attempted satire or parody.

Better responses engaged the reader through a strong controlled voice, a clear well-

structured development and a highly competent use of language.

The candidates who were unable to create and sustain a reflective voice resorted to

narrative. Many slipped into conversation thus losing the perspective of reflection.

The weaker responses had difficulty shifting between the past and present and

demonstrated poor understanding of the term “reflection”.

Being a journal entry enabled candidates to respond in a wide variety of forms, which

perhaps generated large blocks of writing at the expense of paragraphing.

Section III – Topic Areas

Discovery

The best responses did more than identify “threats” and “rewards”. They focused on

the balance between threats and rewards inferred by the question. The best responses

made considered, analytical judgements about the threats and rewards in the material

with which they were familiar (that is, both their Core Text and their chosen

Supplementary Material). The better candidates were able to select two or more

pieces of Supplementary Material which dealt with similar issues as the text and were

able to analytically discuss their relevance to the text through repeated cross-

referencing, synthesising the two pieces of information and drawing logical

conclusions.

The simple language of the question did, however, allow weaker candidates to use a

“prepared” response approach. These responses were generally notable for their

inability to structure an argument which kept them in the average to below average

range. Weaker responses also had a tendency to ignore any linkage between the Core

Text and the Supplementary Material or, alternatively, to ignore the instructiuon to

use a variety of Supplementary Material. Weaker candidates failed to understand that

Supplementary Material needs to be selected on the basis that it supports their

understanding of the Core Text and further enhances their written response to a

particular question which has certain focuses that need to be addressed.

As in previous years, the most popular text by far was Looking for Alibrandi with My

Place also studied by many candidates. The one text barely represented was The

Fiftieth Gate. Some candidates used the film version of Looking for Alibrandi as

Supplementary Material; however, only a few were able to use the changes to the

story to support an above average response.

Satire

Better responses addressed the purpose of satire, making judgements about the

balance between humour and criticism in the Core Texts and Supplementary Material

studied.

This question was approached in two common forms: via a textual analysis or a

stylistic deconstruction. The better responses generally favoured the former and when

discussing specific incidents, integrated appropriately chosen Supplementary Material

to enhance the argument. The more able candidates also balanced their responses by

discussing both “to educate” and “to entertain” in proportion. The best responses

integrated knowledge of techniques, recognising that they were often the source of

entertainment in satire.

The below average responses were generally lacking in the area of how satire

“entertains”; all were able to provide a textbook definition but were unable to clarify

it any further. Some candidates also found selecting relevant and appropriate

examples of Supplementary Material too challenging. They often appeared to have

rote learnt two pieces of Supplementary Material only and were determined to use

them despite the question. Some struggled to use one piece of Supplementary

Material and focussed on retelling the story from the Core Text. There were very few

candidates with no Supplementary Material.

The most popular texts for Satire were Frontline and Animal Farm. There were very

few responses on Gulliver’s Travels.

General Comments

Both Topic Areas were fairly equally represented at this year’s exam. The question of

sourcing Supplementary Material was not a major issue as candidates knew the

minimum requirements for this, namely, to ensure that their Supplementary Material

was sufficiently sourced to convey a sense of authenticity for the markers. There was

a wide range of Supplementary Material drawn from many kinds of text.

Paper 2 – Responses to Literature

Section II – Unique Poetry/Fiction/Drama

Part A – Poetry

All the questions directed the candidates to examine two aspects that were

fundamental to the intent of the poems. In doing this, the candidates were expected to

analyse the use of poetic techniques.

The A range scripts showed sustained development of ideas with more than ample

support and had a strong and consistent focus on the question. The use of language

demonstrated flair.

The B range scripts also showed a strong focus on the question. There was generally

a solid understanding of issues supported with relevant quotation. Use of language

demonstrated above average skill and the presentation of ideas was clear and logical.

The C range scripts showed a reasonable understanding of the poems but lacked depth

of insight. They would often rely on retell and make reference to poetic devices with

little understanding of their effect. Expression was generally sound but was

occasionally characterised by spelling errors and/or weak grammar.

The D and E range scripts demonstrated limited understanding of the question and

frequent misreading of the poems. For the D range there tended to be a reliance on

story telling with unsupported generalisations. Both D and E range responses did not

address technique in any meaningful way.

Part B – Fiction

The “What do you think?”, in four of the eight questions enabled some candidates to

interpret the question to suit themselves and justified a variety of responses. Markers

found the range for all texts.

Most candidates’ responses demonstrated an understanding of the question and a

reasonable knowledge and understanding of the text studied. Most candidates could

use the conventions of the essay and write a sustained argument. There was good use

of quotes from the text to support argument. Weaker responses established a premise,

but the line of argument relied on retelling the story and the use of quotes was

inappropriate.

Part C – Drama

The questions in this section were straightforward and allowed candidates to

demonstrate their understanding of the texts and their dramatic qualities.

Once again candidates’ writing skills seem to have developed in terms of structured,

detailed responses, with the average scripts exceeding four pages. Even among those

candidates who had difficulty focusing on the question, there were many who were

able to write at length on the texts they had studied. Less storytelling was apparent

this year.

Across the range of texts, better candidates, were able to see them as plays and to

demonstrate a sense of audience and stagecraft while addressing all aspects of the

question.

There was some evidence of prepared answers. An increasing number of candidates

appeared to be answering a question from a previous year. Obviously candidates have

been practising from past papers, but need to be able to adapt their knowledge to a

range of questions. Often, candidates who were unable to deal with a question

resorted to a prepared thematic approach that disregarded the question.

2/3 Unit (Common)

Paper 1 – Resources and Uses of English and

Shakespeare

Section I

Question 1 – Reading Task (15 marks)

The 2000 Reading question included a multi-layered passage with a very rich

demonstration of language techniques. This was a suitably challenging passage for

2/3 Unit candidates, allowing the stronger candidates to explore the variety of voices

and language techniques employed by the writer. The passage was an edited version

of a passage derived from Owls Do Cry by Janet Frame.

The question, “Analyse the writer’s use of language in portraying Francie’s thoughts

and feelings evoked by her last day of school” was certainly a discriminating

question, as it required candidates to distinguish the different voices employed in the

passage, as well as apply their knowledge of language to a complex passage through a

multi-faceted question.

Considering the time frame required for this question, markers were very impressed in

2000 with the quality and depth of candidates’ responses. The level of literacy was

extremely high, and the commitment shown by candidates to this complex passage

and multi-faceted question was most impressive. Better responses showed an insight

into the integrated and complex portrayal of character being presented by the writer

through her use of language, while all candidates were able to explore aspects of the

character’s thoughts and feelings as presented through this complex passage. Weaker

responses either presented a ‘walk through’ of the passage, highlighting some features

of language with varying degrees of relevance and insight, or employed a

standardised rubric of formulaic approach in identifying and discussing particular

language techniques, without any holistic appreciation of character portrayal and

language use.

Question 2 – Writing Task

See page 2.

The Writing Task is common to both the 2/3 Unit and 2 Unit General Papers.

Section II – Shakespeare

Question 3 – Othello (25 marks)

In general, the standard of textual knowledge and the understanding of the play’s

issues were very sound. Quotation was accurate and integrated and expression of

ideas was sound.

The term ‘loyalty’ confused some candidates who were unable to clearly define the

concept and often conflated it with themes such as trust and honesty. Better responses

analysed loyalty as a motif/theme that threaded its way across other themes and

relationships in the text. They also examined the ways Shakespeare presented

‘loyalty’ and made comment on his purpose in doing so.

Paper 2 – Poetry/Fiction/Drama

Section II – Unique Poetry/Fiction/Drama

Poetry

Better candidates were able to choose the most appropriate poems to suit the question.

They dealt with all aspects of the question, developed a consistent line of argument,

were prepared to argue a case that might challenge the question, and integrated

appropriate quotations to reveal a thorough knowledge of the poetry.

Average candidates knew the poems and attempted to engage with the question. Some

had problems with the terms of some questions, such as “morality” in Browning,

“passion” in Donne and “civilised” and “primitive” in Heaney.

Weaker candidates often did little more than paraphrase the poetry, apparently

believing a linkage of quotations was sufficient.

Fiction

Many responses were articulate and focussed, showing detailed knowledge of the text

both in quotes as well as reference to events, character relationships and narrative

style. There were many lengthy, sustained responses. Several had a fresh approach

and were enjoyable to read. Some had a sophisticated approach to reading questions

and analysis.

Weaker responses tended to list examples and failed to engage with all aspects of the

question. There was a tendency to story-tell, and frequently these responses had a

narrow and very simple argument.

Drama

The majority of 2/3 Unit (Common) candidates showed a good knowledge of their

texts and an ability to write literate responses. Most candidates attempted to answer

the question and were well prepared in their use of textual evidence.

The better candidates focussed on both the questions and the dramatic elements of the

texts. They used integrated quotations appropriately, and were fluent, original and

refined.

The average candidates still attempted to answer the question but did not necessarily

focus on the whole question nor deal with the dramatic features of the text. They

sometimes tried to adapt a prepared response to the question without due reference to

the particular requirements of the examination question.

Weaker candidates tended to focus on plot and character without engaging with the

question or the text. These responses were sometimes brief and poorly expressed.

Better candidates generally tended to write about more complex texts like Arcadia

and Six Degrees of Separation. The majority of candidates chose Cosi and while there

were some outstanding scripts, many did not come to terms with the part of the

question, “the production of Cosi…” and relied on obvious quotations and character

listing.

More than usual, numbers of students employed literary terminology, which they

neither understood nor used appropriately. It often impeded the clear communication

of the candidate’s own ideas.

The questions were generally accessible and allowed candidates to show their

knowledge and understanding of the texts. Some questions implicitly directed the

candidates to focus on the dramatic aspects of the plays (Questions 18, 20, 21, 23, 25),

while others only implied that they should do so. With the latter, some candidates

overlooked the need to discuss dramatic techniques, focussing instead on thematic or

literary qualities. These candidates were unable to access the top range of marks.

3 Unit (Additional)

In 2000 1504 students sat for the 3 Unit English Examination. They attempted two

questions, one for each elective. The examination was two hours in length.

Marking Scheme

The Marking Scheme is based on the Syllabus Objectives, as listed in the Board of

Studies 3 Unit Syllabus and a list of assessable outcomes derived from these

objectives.

Grade A (25-22)

* constructs coherent and logical argument

* addresses the question

* individual interpretation and analysis

* close reference to text to support argument

* clear and/or sophisticated writing style

* detailed knowledge of text.

Grade B (21-18)

* constructs argument

* answer is relevant to the question

* attempts an individual response

* some reference to text and/or language to support argument

* clear writing style

* good knowledge of text

Grade C (17-13)

* some cohesion in the argument

* answer not always relevant to question

* simplistic and/or standardised interpretation, tendency towards

repetition

* reliance on quotations with limited analysis of text and/or language

* simple but basically clear writing style, some non-standard forms

* reasonable knowledge of text.

Grade D (12-7)

* augmentation of argument scanty and unsustained

* answer not obviously relevant to question

* inadequate interpretation

* use of quotations or references to text with no analysis or explanation

* simple writing style, use of non-standard forms

* limited knowledge of text.

Grade E (6-0)

* something has gone wrong!

* candidate has run out of time, writes only a few words or lines

* candidate has become ill (May be indicated by Examination

Supervisor)

* non-native speaker of English with extremely poor literacy skills

* stress leads to ‘non-serious’ answer - refer to Senior Marker or

Supervisor of Marking

* no attempt to answer the question relevantly.

Not Attempted (NA)

* Completely blank booklet, or words equivalent to ‘Not attempted’

* A entered on the mark sheet - this is different from a mark of 0.

General Comments

Levels of literacy were generally very good. There was a great competence in the

knowledge and understanding of the texts and a general strength in all responses.

There was a tendency to longer responses this year but these were not always better

responses because they were longer. Some could have been strengthened by being

more succinct.

Question 1: Shakespearean Comedy

The question was set up in the form of a binary opposition; ‘end happily’ and ‘cruelty

and sorrow’ so candidates quite competently discussed the happy occurrences and the

cruel and sorrowful occurrences. The better responses addressed the ‘examine’ at the

beginning of the question and a variety of approaches were used covering an

analytical approach to the nature of Comedy, the consideration of the purpose of

Comedy, the nature of the relationships in the plays and the darker aspects of the

Comedies. There were some interesting responses that related the impact of the play

to audience responses in order to support their judgments about the question.

Poorer responses tended to equate a play that ends happily with ‘Comedy ’. Better

responses understood the nature of Comedy and used it as a tool for analysis of the

text and the basis of their examination essay. Less successful scripts also focused

mainly on the ending of the plays and did not bother to analyse with a broader

perspective; they were not able to see the plays as layered. There was a tendency, at

this weaker level, to deal narratively with the plays, one by one. Few were able to deal

with such issues as cruelty and sorrow as individual concepts. These candidates

quoted long passages of text, in preference to shorter and more pointed words or

phrases.

Better candidates looked at the convention of the pastoral as a possible layer of

meaning in As You Like It. These scripts were more analytical and referred to the

plays in fresh and personal ways. Very good scripts distinguished between cruelty

and sorrow; and displayed a knowledge of the convention of Shakespeare comedy.

They selected accurate quotations which shed light on their argument. As well, they

showed a high degree of fluency.

An A grade script needed to show a personal response tempered by insight and

controlled by the text.

Most candidates answered on Twelfth Night and As You Like It. Some candidates

wrote on all three texts and this weakened their response, as responses on each text

were more superficial.

Question 2: Contemporary Australian Drama

There was a tendency for students to produce issues based responses. The concept of

"Australianness" was not well addressed and candidates struggled to come to terms

with the implications of this narrow focus.

Texts were often not discussed or viewed as plays. There was a distinct lack of

appreciation of the theatricality of this medium. Candidates who were able to

integrate an analysis of issues with the way performance communicated these issues

were rewarded with above average marks.

Question 3: Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales

Good responses competently distinguished the various voices of the texts and could

effectively discuss judgement in relation to the voices. Better responses were clear in

their distinction between Chaucer the poet and Chaucer the Pilgrim.

The poorer responses often skipped one of the parts of the text to be discussed

(generally the Prologue to the Tale) and had some trouble with ‘judgemental’,

interpreting it as the ability to make clever judgements about others. The question

allowed candidates, indeed encouraged them, to write a personal response, well based

in the text.

Question 4: Yeats: The Later Poems

Many candidates simplified this question into a contrast between imagination and

experience. ‘Lived experience’ was often interpreted as what had happened in Yeats’

life, but pleasingly not many candidates fell into the trap of irrelevant biographical

details. Better responses interpreted it in an imaginative way. The ‘wild’ of the

experience was often ignored or inserted regularly. The question’s challenge lies in

the word ‘wedded’, which required candidates to relate the two elements. Better

responses came to terms with the relationship between the ‘wild imagination’ and

‘lived experience’ by developing an argument relating to how these elements were

linked.

Some of the set poems were more appropriate to answering this question, for

example, ‘The Circus Animal’s Desertion’, and this was used well by a number of

candidates. Often the use of this poem set the rest of the response up well. Other

candidates, however, used the poems that they had obviously decided to use despite

the question. This did not preclude a good response, but the task weaker students set

themselves, was then more difficult.

Strong responses reflected careful selection of poems, to fit the specific requirements

of the question. They looked at all three main features of the questions and directly

linked them to the poems. Strong responses were also characterised by enthusiasm

for the poetry and a clear personal view, and recognised the power of the poetry to

illuminate particular features of the human condition.

Conversely, weaker responses had a mechanical feel, which suggested the prepared

answer, and discussed the poetry from a remote impersonal viewpoint. They often

discussed, at irrelevant length, Yeats’ relationship with Maud Gonne and his theory of

gyres. They also tended to look at the three poems in succession, rather than

discussing the essential features of the poems together, in an integrated response.

In terms of expressive skills, markers were generally impressed with candidates’

control of language. However, they did note a number of very long responses that

could have been condensed into briefer, more economical and readable essays.

Length in itself is not a virtue; it must be justified by cogent argument, and constant

relevance to the question. Markers also noted the tendency to quote large sections of

poetry as prose and to present quotations, without supporting analysis and discussion.

Candidates sometimes overlooked basic writing features such as paragraphing and

correct attribution of text titles. However, markers commented that there were few

very poor responses. This year, candidates had, on the whole been well prepared, and

submitted able responses.

Question 5: The Study of the Sonnet

Better responses could place ‘Shakespearean sonnets’ in the context of the sonnet

development and competently discussed the ‘unconventional’ in terms of the imagery

subverting the ideas, the rhythms subverting the ideas. Other responses also handled

the question well, interpreting ‘conventional and unconventional ’ in relation to the

sonnet sequence.

Poorer responses tended to generalise about ‘conventional’ and ‘unconventional’ and

then give a reading of 4 sonnets.

The well known of the sonnets were very popular choices.

Question 6: Utopias and Anti-Utopias

Those candidates who based their discussion on the notion of "societies" were able, in

general, to construct relevant and interesting discussions. Candidates who wrote

character-based essays examining the experiences of individuals had more difficulty

in maintaining a clear focus on the question.

Some students did not express a clear understanding of "paralysis". They either gave

a token recognition to the word, or used words such "oppression" as substitutes.

Better candidates were able to explore different kinds of paralysis and demonstrate

that such examples indicated the desire of those in power to maintain this paralysis.

Candidates who defined the terms of the essay clearly in their introduction were most

likely to establish an effective argument.

There was a diversity of opinion concerning paralysis in Utopia itself, with some

candidates opting for the more positive notion of stability instead. In either case,

although both approaches were substantiated, there was significantly less discussion

of Utopia than of the other texts studied.

Candidates in the A and B ranges were more likely to focus on the word "portray" and

there were some sophisticated and interesting assessments of the ways paralysed

societies were portrayed. Most candidates, however, were content to describe such

portrayals.

In developing an argument, better scripts gave emphasis to both Books 1 and 2 of

Utopia. Weaker scripts considered only Book 2. Few candidates attempted to deal

with the genre of Utopia, with most content to refer to it as a novel and so treat it as

such.

Few students looked carefully at the language and structure of the texts, even though

both Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Handmaid’s Tale lend themselves to a discussion

of the role of language in creating and maintaining paralysed societies.

Question 7: The Novel of Awakening

Candidates seemed very comfortable with this question. Better scripts did more than

list "limitations" and "opportunities", choosing to emphasise the process of

recognition and link the two concepts. The best scripts were able to develop an

argument which integrated a discussion of limitations, opportunities and character

with the experience of an awakening, or awakenings.

Quite often, the first text written about (usually Jane Eyre) was discussed in intricate

detail and, as the script progressed, discussions of subsequent texts became less

detailed. Better candidates were still able to maintain a useful discussion in a more

concise form but weaker candidates were unable to write fully about all three texts.

Scripts tended to be long and on the whole candidates knew the texts well and were

confident. At the same time, many candidates could have been more selective in the

detail they presented without sacrificing the quality of their argument.

The best scripts, again, dealt with more than just character. Writers of these scripts

were able to stand outside the text and reflect on the art and form of each novel. They

were able to understand the context and the thesis of each novel and to evaluate the

impact on readers.

Question 8: Modern Prose

The Modern Prose question suitably challenged candidates and the requirement to

focus on ‘tensions’ proved to be the key discriminator. Candidates able to view

non-fictional prose as a structured literary form were able to excel, while the less able

tended to deal with ‘movement and meditation’, ‘people and places’ at the descriptive

level and provided long accounts of journeys and settings with little analytical depth.

Of the five texts, Dessaix’s Night Letters was approached most competently; here

candidates dealt with the text with particular understanding and sensitivity.

Numerous discussions of Wild Swans displayed evidence of candidates being

overwhelmed by textual bulk and resorting to historical recount.

Question 9: Australian English

Once again very few candidates studied this elective. Most of those who did had been

soundly prepared and presented solid, if pedestrian, responses. More able candidates

saw the possibility of different interpretations of ‘local’ and/or the potential stance

that identified local usages but placed Australian language in a global context.

This year more candidates revealed an awareness of the effects of media and digital

technologies on Australian English and drew their examples from a wider range of

sources than in previous years. Passion for the language was evident, sometimes to

the detriment of a rigorous, analytical response to the question.