english a1 · november 2007 subject reports english a1 overall grade boundaries higher level ....

November 2007 subject reports

ENGLISH A1

Overall grade boundaries Higher level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 - 13 14 - 29 30 - 41 42 - 54 55 - 67 68 - 79 80 - 100

Standard level Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 - 13 14 - 28 29 - 39 40 - 52 53 - 64 65 - 77 78 - 100

Higher Level World Literature Component grade boundaries Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 - 5 6 - 11 12 - 17 18 - 22 23 - 28 29 - 33 34 - 40

Overall impression of the candidates’ performance in the language A1 World Literature component

The performance in World Literature Assignments did not present any significant or egregious elements, although some aspects have improved and other difficulties persist.

The strengths and weaknesses are very similar to those noted in the May 2007 session. The specific improvements and weaknesses of this session are outlined below, but teachers and administrators may well find that a close perusal of the May 2007 Subject Report may inform, clarify or remind them of minor and major points they may have misunderstood or overlooked. The details of regulations about forms, word length, and choice of syllabus texts require a good deal of remembering, and all of us need to refresh our knowledge of them from time to time. The Subject Reports of past sessions can be found on the English A1 Diploma Programme Home Page of the IBO Online Curriculum Centre, accessible to every IB

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2008

November 2007 subject reports Group 1 English A1

school having students sit the examination, and for which every teacher should have a password.

Strengths of the November 2007 session for English A1 Candidates

• Some schools with large entries have been both diligent and inventive in the creation of diverse topics, clearly following the admonitions of the Subject Guide about avoiding the replication of topics.

• The candidates’ knowledge of their texts was, in many cases, solid, and sometimes even impressive in the grasp of textual complexities and of details.

• There were a number of good creative assignments for 2(b). While less frequently chosen as an exercise than in the past, the choices seem to have been judiciously made and by appropriate candidates. “Statements of Intent” have in some cases improved, with more students providing an actual rationale for their choices.

• There is improved handling of internet sources in some schools.

• Apparently, the advice about turning this assignment into a superficial sociological investigation has been more frequently heeded than in the past.

• Titles of the assignments are more often brief and to the point, avoiding the coy or obscure approaches in the past.

• In general, there were many candidates whose written expression was appropriate to the level and to the task.

• There has been some reduction in the perception that the assignments are primarily intended as research essays, with the use of secondary courses made into a sine qua non.

Notable weaknesses of the English A1 Candidates for November 2007

• The appropriate and viable topic seems still to elude some centres and some candidates. Success or failure frequently hinges on this choice and this is one of several issues related to the supervision of the candidates’ work as described in the Subject Guide. Finding elements that link the two or three texts is perhaps a more difficult task for students than some might perceive.

• A second failure and one noted in the May Subject Report is the erroneous choice and placement of texts in the appropriate parts of the school syllabus and therefore the misuse of them in the assignments. These errors often do not stem from the candidate but from the classroom and/or the school.


• Just as a certain number of candidates reveal a good knowledge as well as understanding of their texts, there is also a certain number who seem to absorb plot and character and not much more. While teachers do want to avoid over teaching of the World Literature selections, they do need to aid students to evolve from simply reading to solid understanding.

• Secondary sources seem to present problems as does literary theory. In many of the assignments poorly understood theories really sabotage candidates who would do well with a much more straightforward approach that they can effectively use. Secondary sources present similar problems: ill-represented and poorly utilized, they create problems of clarity and sometimes of good sense.

• There were instances of practically all the familiar technical problems: failure to include passages in Assignment 2(c); failure to indicate the translation; poor presentation of candidates’ names and numbers; poor paragraphing, and generally poor presentation to an examiner of what should follow at least the basic principles of academic writing. Given the form—word-processing—in which the assignments are presented, the quality of some of the work suggests that this component receives little attention and a low priority in some of the schools and candidates in this session.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

• Both administrators and teachers need to review the regulations for these assignments. These are found in The Language A1 Subject Guide, The Teacher Support Material for World Literature, and The Subject Reports published after each May and November session. Since the World Literature Assignments do not change each year as do Paper One and Paper two, The Subject Reports contain a wealth of information relevant in some aspects to all schools. All of this material is available on the Online Curriculum Centre. In addition the Forum in the subject is a rich resource for answering even the smallest questions a teacher or coordinator may have.

• A heightened level of careful supervision would seem to be in order at some centres. All assignments are signed by teachers, and presumably they have some role in passing along the poorly presented work noted above.

• Another issue of supervision is in guiding students to the correct handling of textual evidence. Placing textual detail in the footnotes is noticeably being used to extend the word limit, and schools should be aware that, upon noticing the practice, examiners are likely to apply the penalties for exceeding the word limit.

• It does not really help the examiners’ task to encase these assignments in various forms of binding and plastic sleeves; the assignments are fine simply as properly sequenced attachments to the cover sheets.


• A final recommendation is to ensure that your candidates not only have access to the grading criteria for World Literature, but that they have been guided through them at least once, so that they clearly know what is rewarded and what is not.

Standard Level World Literature Component grade boundaries Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 20

Overall impression of the candidates’ performance in the language A1 World Literature component

Most candidates treat their World Literature assignments seriously and the best ones produce interesting, well-researched papers. One of the most common faults is the tendency to describe rather than analyse while another is to depend on rather dubious internet sites. If students wish to use secondary sources, and there is no reason for them not to, then they should be given advice on which ones to consult. Although it is not mentioned in the assessment criteria, candidates should list their sources in a bibliography and, in particular, specify which translation they are using for their primary sources. It is also helpful if candidates reference all quotations, avoid using single spacing and clip or staple the pages together; essays put in plastic sheets are less easy to handle.

Selection of topic/aspect/title

It is rare for an aspect to be completely inappropriate but they are sometimes worded too vaguely or even ungrammatically. It also happens that the aspect is not defined carefully enough in the introduction. Many good candidates choose literary topics to write about, but even here candidates need to be careful. The success of essays on ‘food or ‘clothes’ depends on how important those references are in the primary texts. The references also need to be connected to the main theme(s) of the work. Weaker essays list mentions of food, for instance, but do not move on to analyse them; description is not enough to gain a good grade.

There are still too many schools where all the candidates basically write the same essay, even though the titles indicate that they are very different. What these essays demonstrate is the knowledge students have gained in class about the Part 1 works; it does not reveal any personal involvement or understanding. This indicates that the teaching approach to the texts may have been too limited. It is fine to teach works by theme, but not just one theme. Nor is it a good idea to allow your students to choose only one type of aspect, for example, a comparison of characters. There is no doubt that the choice of aspect and the precise wording of the title are keys to the success or otherwise of the assignment. Teachers should discuss topics with their students and offer them advice, but not tell them exactly what to


write about. Remind them that they can write about, character, point of view, themes and literary features such as foreshadowing and symbolism.

Knowledge and understanding

As an examiner, I think one can divide candidates into three groups. One group do not seem to have read the book carefully from cover to cover. They rely on summaries of the plot gained from the internet, from class notes or even from friends. They do not have their Part 1 texts beside them while they are writing their assignment, as is revealed by the fact that the names of titles, authors and characters are misspelled. Fortunately, there are relatively few candidates in this group and, as most teachers know, only special measures on their part can ensure their transference to the second group.

In this next group students have read the works once but they have not re-read them just before writing their world literature assignment. They do, however, consult their texts and find a few quotations to support their ideas. These candidates are likely to repeat what they have heard in class, without thinking about it for themselves, and they often leave out important examples that would have supported their arguments.

The last group are those who gain the highest marks. They have not only read their texts more than once but they have thought about them for themselves; they use enough detailed references and quotations to show how well they know and understand the texts. If they consult secondary sources, they test the information they have found by carefully re-reading their primary texts.

Some candidates do not seem to realise the difference between description and analysis. This is particularly true of those who are in the second group. For example, if the essay is about corruption, examples of corrupt activities are given but there is no attempt to explain why the author has provided these examples. Or an essay on symbolism will list several symbols explaining what they symbolize and then end the essay. An examiner wants to know if the candidate understands importance of these symbols?

Presentation

The majority of candidates can write well, know their texts and show some involvement with both the texts and the assignment. What remains one of the weakest areas, is a failure to organise their essays carefully. Writing a comparative literary essay is not easy and needs plenty of practice but the organisation of a persuasive argument is a worthwhile skill to acquire. The ability to write coherently does depend on how precisely the aspect or topic has been defined in the introduction; students need to be trained to think clearly enough to create effective introductions and conclusions which should be related to each other but which should not be the same.

Use of language

There are many candidates whose writing style is a pleasure to read. In some schools, even students who are not mother-tongue speakers have been taught to write accurately and stylishly, but time needs to be devoted to achieving this goal. It is very dispiriting to read


essays which are full of errors in spelling, punctuation and syntax control. Luckily, such essays are in the minority. What is more common is a failure to proof-read essays. This is not acceptable in an essay the candidate has not written under exam conditions.


Below you will find only three recommendations but they are, I think, very important. If followed your students cannot fail to benefit.

• At the beginning of the course prioritize the teaching of writing; while time spent on how to organise a mass of material is invaluable to the candidates for all their assignments.

• It is essential for teachers to spend enough time discussing the aspect of the assignment which each candidate wishes to write about: not only the aspect, but its precise wording in the title.

• Take great care over the choice of the Part 1 texts. Not only should the works have some appeal and value for students in the 17-19 year age group, but they should also be able to generate a wide range of topics appropriate to the World Literature assignment.

Higher Level Internal Assessment Component grade boundaries Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 17 18 - 21 22 - 25 26 - 30

The range and suitability of the work submitted

As usual, there was a wide variety of texts used especially in prose and poetry. Moderators were also very happy that the majority of the schools are doing an excellent job in meeting the requirements of the course. Further, most teachers conducted the orals professionally and performed the administrative and clerical tasks efficiently.

Unfortunately, a few schools continue to violate the regulations in spite of the recommendations in previous subject reports. Among the most frequent violations were the:

• use of inappropriate texts, with some in translation and others not found on the PBL

• submission of incomplete samples (e.g. no extracts, no guiding questions and/or subsequent questions, the tapes or CDs are poorly labelled if at all, no Form I/A1RF)

• subsequent questions that shifted attention from the passage to the rest of the work all the time


• improper, or no, use of guiding questions (e.g. making them, if any, compulsory)

• irregular commentaries (e.g. they are overlong, or there are no subsequent questions, they are based on ineligible texts)

• lack of standardization of the commentary tasks and marks in schools with more than one teacher

Knowledge and understanding of extract or work(s)

The large majority of candidates showed adequate or better knowledge of the extract, easily identifying its context and importance to the whole work. In poetry and short stories, this included relating the extract from the rest of the poem/short story and to others by the same author. The stronger commentaries also explored ‘context’ in terms of the portrayal and/or development of character and theme, the interplay of the various uses of language, shifts in tone and mood, and so on.

Most moderators also reported the following:

• in extracts from plays and novels, in particular, candidates were content to explain what had happened just before and would happen just after the passage

• in poetry, short stories and speeches, most candidates either confined themselves to the passage or made glib references to other works by the author

Interpretation and personal response

Most moderators appreciated the candidates’ attention to the significance of the details in the whole passage. Satisfactory analyses related these details to character and plot development, with varying degrees of depth and success. The stronger commentaries went beyond mechanical uses of material learnt in class; they engaged in personal explorations of the different features of the passage and their effects, while making pertinent connections with the rest of the work. In addition, they commented on the effects of these elements on the audience.

Still, this area remains the most challenging. Whereas there were fewer cases of paraphrase, moderators were concerned at the number of candidates who list the literary devices or make general comments about their effects or confine their analysis to plot and character revelation.

The other main candidate weaknesses were:

• overlooking significant portions of the passage, with the teacher not bringing the candidate back to them in the follow-up questions

• ignoring significant features of the passage e.g. point of view/persona, the role of dialogue, setting, structure and so on

• answering the guiding questions only


• interpreting the passage in virtual isolation from the work

• teachers asking leading subsequent questions or shifting focus to the rest of the work(s) most of the time

Presentation

Increasingly, many schools are putting sufficient emphasis on structure in commentary work. The best candidates not only had a clear focus but also gave a developed, detailed and organized analysis of the extract; and they ensured coherence and cogency in their work by using pertinent examples for every point they discussed.

Among the main weaknesses were commentaries which:

• were shapeless: no structure (e.g. introduction, main part, and conclusion ---just like an essay)

• had weak introductions e.g. providing irrelevant biographical details, identifying a thesis that was not proved in the body of the commentary and so on.

• used the line-by-line approach without linking the different parts

• lacked evidence for the points made

• were very mechanical, unengaged and unconvincing.

Language

Almost all the candidates used the appropriate register though many used very few literary terms.

However, some moderators were concerned at the inability or reluctance to launch into complex syntax in a sustained way. Equally, the language of argument (e.g. in contrast, although, this proves, nevertheless and so on) was missing in many commentaries. Thirdly, some candidates seemed unaware that this was a formal exercise requiring an equally formal discussion.

Recommendations for the teaching of future candidates

Among the aims of the Part 2 component in the Language A1 Subject Guide, is one that states:

“Teachers are encouraged to familiarize their students with a variety of interpretations of, and critical perspectives on, these works; they should also guide students to form and articulate personal responses to the works.” (p14).

For some schools, a more conscious response to this point might enrich the quality of their students’ commentaries and literary analysis in general.


Teachers must familiarize themselves with all the necessary documents (e.g. Teacher Support Material, the Language A1 Guide, the annual Subject Report) every so often---and certainly before any major assessment, like conducting the oral commentaries, to ensure full compliance with the regulations. Moderators have been frustrated at how some schools repeat the same mistakes each session, in spite of all the feedback sent out each year.

Below are the main reminders:

• choose/teach works that are appropriate to the level of your students

• train the students to explain the content and contexts of a passage or poem in a precise and concise way

• regularly ask the students to cross-refer a detail or technique or idea to a similar one elsewhere in the work or collection in order to interpret and respond to it in depth

• during the course, help students to build up their knowledge and use of literary terms of all kinds as appropriate to the different works studied

• ensure the ways in which a writer – as distinct from a character or narrator – develops his/her work and organizes its effects on us

• set passages that are rich in literary features and occur at key points in the works

• in Shakespeare’s plays, use extracts that contain dialogue

• use the commentary format for oral assignments on any works throughout the course. Practice, as they say, makes perfect.

Standard Level Internal Assessment Component grade boundaries Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 - 4 5 - 8 9 - 12 13 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 23 24 - 30

The range and suitability of the work submitted

Shakespeare’s tragedies, led by Macbeth and to some extent Othello, continue to be very popular. In contrast, there was a more diverse range of the poets used. A vast majority of schools complied with the regulations; the teachers conducted the orals professionally and performed all the administrative and clerical tasks efficiently.

However, a few schools failed to:

• submit some of the materials, usually the passages, on time


• keep the commentaries within the maximum time allowed for each

• standardize the marks of the different teachers assessing the orals.

Knowledge and understanding of extract or work(s)

Most of the candidates provided satisfactory insights into the context of the passage while the stronger commentaries delved into its significance in relation to the whole work, in relation to a wide range of literary features. These included place in plot, character and thematic development, the emotional feel of the passage and so on. As a result, most candidates fared quite well on this criterion.

However, the weaker commentaries failed to:

• go beyond providing biographical details of the author and the event(s) leading to the passage

• discuss the relationships between the extract and the longer work

Interpretation and personal response

Very many schools had taught their candidates the value of close analysis and the performance was rich and varied. Such candidates discussed the author’s choices and their effects in the extract confidently and thoughtfully.

They were also able to include the audience when discussing these effects.

However, many students still rely on paraphrase while the ‘less weak’ commentaries either explained the different aspects of the passage (e.g. “By this, Othello means that he is confused.”), which did not help matters at all. Some candidates relied on simply listing and/or attempting to define the literary devices while others elected to answer the guiding questions only. In a few cases, the teacher’s subsequent questions showed that students were expected to answer these questions, which was not meant to be so. In some instances, the commentary ignored significant sections of the extract but the teacher’s subsequent questions did not address this omission.

Presentation

Many moderators reported a significant awareness of ‘structure’ in commentary planning.

The most successful plans were analogous to ably structured essays, with a clear and relevant introduction, body and conclusion. Usually such careful plans proceeded to engage in developed, well-illustrated and coherent analyses of the extract.

The main weaknesses ranged from lack of a clear structure or, as was usually the case, an introduction with a clear thesis followed by a discussion that ignored this thesis and often lacked a conclusion. In some other cases, it was very difficult to tell the purpose of the discussion. This was particularly evident in commentaries using the line-by-line approach.


Furthermore, many weak ‘analyses’ either failed to provide evidence from the text or they were too short.

Language

Almost all the candidates used the appropriate register though many used very few literary terms. As well, it was pleasing to hear the well trained candidates use the literary terms properly and confidently.

Only a few school entries had many students that were unaware of the formal nature of the commentary exercise.

Recommendations for the teaching of future candidates

Among the aims of the Part 2 component in the Language A1 Subject Guide, is one that states:

“Teachers are encouraged to familiarize their students with a variety of interpretations of, and critical perspectives on, these works; they should also guide students to form and articulate personal responses to the works.” (p14).

For some schools, a more conscious response to this point might enrich the quality of their students’ commentaries and literary analysis in general.

Below is a summary of the main reminders from the moderators:

• choose/teach works that are appropriate to the level of your students

• consult and use the IBO subject-related documents (i.e.the Teacher Support Material, Language A1 Guide, and the annual Subject Report) regularly

• explain the content and contexts of a passage or poem in a precise and concise way

• engage students in structuring the commentary like an essay

• regularly engage students in exploring the links between the passage and the whole work

• set passages that are rich in literary features and occur at key points in the works

• in Shakespeare’s plays, use extracts that contain dialogue

• practice the orals throughout the course, to give the student the necessary skills and confidence

• ensure ways in which a writer – as distinct from a character or narrator – develops his/her work and organizes its effects on us


Higher Level Paper One

Component grade boundaries Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 - 3 4 - 7 8 - 9 10 - 12 13 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 25

The areas of the programme and examination that appeared difficult for the candidates

Examiners reported that in general students chose the two pieces in more or less equal numbers, though there were some schools in which nearly all candidates chose one or the other. Both seemed accessible but challenging, giving the best students a chance to shine. In the case of the prose passage, a great deal depended on whether tone was recognized; in the poem, many had difficulty with “you,” introduced near the end, and some virtually ignored the final stanzas.

Some failed to understand the selection they had chosen or imposed their own ideas, unconvincingly supported. Several examiners noted that many candidates failed to offer an overview, treating the individual bits (and ignoring those which posed difficulties). Many asserted that an aspect was a “theme” and then offered little or no discussion of its significance, or the writer’s approach to and attitude toward it. Students from some schools appeared to be trying a sort of shotgun approach, writing reams (often repetitiously) in the hope that something might hit the mark.

Levels of knowledge, understanding, and skill demonstrated

Most candidates seemed well prepared for the task, and both organization and expression were in general reasonably good. There were fewer formulaic introductions: “Bennett uses x, y and z to achieve his ends, a, b, and c.” While there were frequent problems with syntax, register, spelling and punctuation, the writing was in most cases at least basically clear. The handwriting, on the other hand, was sometimes a huge obstacle to communication. The use of the word “theme” for “topic” continues. Students might benefit from being reminded that a theme requires a phrase or a sentence, not a mere word: not “death” but “the impact of death on several very different characters”.

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual questions

As indicated above, students chose both possibilities in more or less equal numbers and did as well or poorly, on average, on one as on the other. Neither seemed to cause undue difficulty.


With respect to the Bennett passage, there were some very perceptive accounts of the complexities of Sophia’s reactions and some excellent analyses of the way readers’ attitudes to her are shaped.

There was, however, a good deal of careless reading: some were confused about the narrative voice; some assumed that Critchlow was a doctor; some concluded the death was suicide or murder; many missed Scales entirely.

Quite often students noted striking elements (e.g., the brutal description of the body; the treatment of time) but ignored their significance. In many cases they relied on narrative and summary rather than analysis in aid of an overview.

One frequent problem was a failure to gauge tone and to recognize any ironic or comedic elements in the situation as described by the narrator. Some candidates insisted on reading the passage as the account of an oppressed woman in a patriarchal society, but this seems to be the way some students today read just about anything. Many made no note at all of the qualities of language (Critchlow’s colloquialism; rather archaic usages elsewhere).

The poem evoked some very fine responses to the role of the past in the present, the mysterious qualities represented by the lunulae and the women who wore them, and the speaker’s struggle to recapture their reality. The best students wrestled effectively with the ideas about “winter” and with the speaker’s efforts to visualize the women of the lunulae.

For once students were able to make really pertinent comments on structure and use (or lack) of punctuation (though a mere listing of number of lines per stanza did not suffice). The final stanzas were often glossed over and the possible identity of the “you” who gives the postcard was not addressed—some suggested that it was the reader who did so-- but many noted and attempted to find a meaning for the return to “thin gold” in the final line.


As implied above, most of this group of students appeared well prepared for commentary. Teachers should continue the good practice which is producing these results. Perhaps the ideas below might be considered too.

Students need to plan carefully and then follow a reasonable and well-signposted structure, avoiding verbosity and using the text in judiciously selected and carefully integrated quotations to support their points. (Merely citing line numbers is not an adequate mode of presenting evidence.)

They need to avoid mere summary. A means of encouraging this, suggested by one examiner, might be to stress the importance of organization and the development of paragraphs which introduce a topic, provide concrete examples, then examine them in an effort to validate the point being made. This three-part movement may appear mechanical but would provide a kind of structure that depends more on analysis than on summary.


To avoid the impression that they see the trees but not the forest, students need to begin by formulating an overview, expressed in the introductory paragraph(s), then moving into close focus on individual points while showing their relation to the overarching interpretation.

Candidates should also be unafraid to explore possible alternate interpretations. The piece for commentary should not be approached as if it must be decoded for an absolute truth. As one examiner put it, “A few…were confident enough to offer possible variant readings, understanding that plurality of approach towards texts is not a weakness but a strength and appreciating that different readers may read texts in different ways.”

Finally and above all, students need plentiful practice in commenting on a variety of passages representing a variety of authorial stances and techniques. Timed (even self-timed) exercises are also important.

Higher Level Paper Two Component grade boundaries Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 - 3 4 - 7 8 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 25

General comments

Once again, the variety and depth of responses on this paper showed that many candidates know and understand their texts and are being taught thoroughly approaches to these texts. Many students have read, explored, and considered their texts in terms of the concerns and issues raised by the authors as well as the literary features prevalent in the works. On another positive note, students understand the task at hand on the paper and tend to write fluent, well-organized essays without any apparent concerns for time pressure. Very few candidates in the session either chose questions outside of their area of study or used inappropriate texts in their responses showing that they have been well prepared for the demands and format of the paper. As usual, and as the examiners noted, many students showed a “solid overall sense of the events and characters in their texts,” a good sense of which questions “they could answer effectively with reference to the texts they had studied,” a “keen sense of argument,” and a “sophisticated” manner of writing. One examiner made the particular point, which rang true, that given the range of cultures, types of schools, and abilities, candidates made perceptive use of literature from many different periods and places.

Though there were of course candidates who fell short in some of the above aspects there was one general and important concern that was echoed by many of examiners: the inability of students to stay focused on the question and its particular, sometimes multiple, demands. Some candidates still seem to attempt to mold answers they have crafted earlier to fit the current questions. Others try to write simply everything they know about their works, perhaps crafting an intelligent “reading” of the works without addressing the question aside from the almost offhanded use of a term from the question. While examiners are careful not to “double jeopardize” candidates for a particular error under two descriptors, when a candidate uses


relatively common quotes or stock statements about a text while not attempting to make a link to the question at hand, knowledge, and certainly understanding, is called into question. With understanding comes flexibility with the texts and an ability to shape a focused, relevant answer to almost any question. Memorized quotes and critical readings of a text may appear in the very best answers on paper two but their use does not always show understanding, and when they are used in particularly irrelevant ways, may actually show the opposite.


Drama

Drama was the overwhelming area of study for the schools in this session and both of the questions in this section were popular.

Question 1(a) This question posed some difficulty when the play itself was treated as story. Answers taking this route were often too broad and never really defined the idea of “story” nor,for that matter considered “the compulsion to talk.” There were some good essays that dealt with a particular character’s desire to tell stories, or the importance of stories from the past in terms of the relationships of characters, or, most successfully, the role of character/narrators such as Tom in A Streetcar Named Desire.

Question 1(b) This question wasn’t handled as frequently as the above but candidates had some success when they clearly defined climax, discussed its varying placement and discussed effects in relation to this placement. Unfortunately it proved difficult to do all three and some candidates faltered from the start with only a vague notion of climax or little concern beyond the description of what happens.

Poetry

Very few schools choose this option for study. The candidates who did seemed to overwhelmingly choose question 2 (b) as no examiner reported on particular responses to 2(a).

Question 2(a)

Question 2(b) Some of the responses to this question were disappointing in that the use of references and striking or memorable lines was limited. Some candidates also struggled to discuss the significance or effect of the particular lines. At the same time there were some excellent, personal, and perceptive responses to this question that showed an engagement and understanding of a variety of poetry.

Prose: The Novel and Short Story

Question 3(a) Many candidates chose this question, perhaps because it fitted well with many texts that are frequently chosen for study and focus on gender issues or with critical gender discussions in the classroom. Candidates struggled at times though with discussing differing “perceptions” rather than just writing about general gender “issues” in the works.


Question 3(b) Some candidates had difficulty defining the terms (or had a hard time being consistent with examples, treating, for example, every memory as a flashback) and many shied away from a structural discussion. Others were able to show quite well how these elements added to an understanding of conflict, character or particular themes or issues.

Prose other than the novel or short story

Question 4(a) Though some candidates had difficulty in defining or understanding the idea of “sub-textual”, successful candidates found rich comparisons between the literal level of works and their “deeper meanings.”

Question 4(b) This question was very seldom answered but offered room for a few good responses to show the energy in their texts.

General Questions on Literature

Question 5(a) The question seemed easy to understand, not offering too many challenges. Some candidates had difficulty, at times, differentiating between weather being used more as a suggestive literary element and weather an element of plot/story.

Question 5(b) Many candidates responded to this question and were able to write some perceptive essays especially in relation to pairs of characters in novels or plays though some produced simply two separate character sketches. Though some students had difficulty coming to terms with the idea of “doubling,” others were able to make connections to the structure of the work or certain issues such as inner conflict and wrote convincing responses.

Question 5(c) Though very infrequently attempted, this question offered an opportunity for some interesting responses from students who read works where science or perhaps even technology played a role in the works.

Question 5(d) This was a quite popular question and the quality of responses varied widely. A book like Grapes of Wrath lent itself well to the argument that a novel purposefully tries to mold character, while more ambiguous works, while affecting a reader, didn’t seem to fit the same sense of purposefully molding a reader. Some candidates misinterpreted the question and read it as the molding or creation of a character within a text. Other candidates offered quite general responses in relation to “passing a leisurely hour.”


While the candidates have obviously been taught well, one problem that perhaps shows through many responses is “over teaching.” While it is very good for students to have structures and models (in terms of ways of writing responses), as well as terms, ideas, and background information (in terms of the texts themselves), too much of a reliance on teacher-driven learning and memorization can lead to stale responses, especially when the question at hand is avoided. The following list of suggestions is based on examiner observations and includes some relevant recommendations from the May 2007 subject report:


• Spend time working with past questions and teaching students to focus on both the various parts of questions and possible ways to use their texts as support for an answer.

• The students and teacher can devise their own questions or attempt to look for the widest possible themes, issues or techniques to consider in light of the texts they have studied. The key is to be attentive to the question/concern and to be flexible with the texts.

• Students should be encouraged to note and review passages from their texts which are of particular interest to themselves and not necessarily the class as a whole. These passages or references can be used in their responses.

• At all times students should be taught to consider the relevance of the references they use to the question being asked.

• Perhaps more time should be spent coming up with concise answers or outlined answers to a wide variety of questions rather than crafting a few perfect essays that student may then be tempted to reshape into an answer for a new question on the exam.

• Encourage students to be concise, relevant and detailed. Students need to be dissuaded from writing everything they know about a text.

• Help students to see the connection between literary features and their effects on the meaning of a text.

• Choose the works for the syllabus carefully considering accessibility, diversity of technique and concerns, and some sense of cohesion.

• Have students learn to define terms as a regular practice and alert them to the need to do so in the examination. (repeated from May 2007 report)

• Inattentive and imprecise use of such terms as “The American Dream,” “existentialism,” “the Absurd,” and other abstractions are not contributing to much precision and success in the essays. Please either circumvent them or teach them with great care. (repeated from May 2007 report)

Standard Level paper One Component grade boundaries Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 - 3 4 - 7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 25



Both pieces for commentary seemed accessible—one examiner wondered if they were in fact too “easy”, but teachers appeared to regard them as appropriate in difficulty and capable of stretching better candidates. The guiding questions on the poem seemed more helpful than those on the passage. Students who let the questions determine the content and sequence of points to be made sometimes produced rather mechanical and prosaic responses: one examiner said that “those who embarked on their own agenda for appreciation of the writing seemed to do a better commentary on the whole”.

In some instances there was evidence of extensive and no doubt time-consuming planning, and many of these candidates left their commentaries unfinished. A large number of commentaries went on at great wandering length, lacking a satisfactory sense of shape, and illegibility was a serious obstacle to communication in a great many cases.

Levels of Knowledge, Understanding and Skills

Most of these students seemed to enjoy writing about the selection they had chosen. This was particularly true of work on the poem. The majority understood the passage or the poem in some depth and wrote reasonably accomplished commentaries.

Most candidates showed a basic mastery of the task, dealing with both content and style. Some used the guiding questions well; others dared not to use them and produced responses which seemed genuinely individual, often expressed in apt language and producing a feeling that the piece and the task were really enjoyable.

Many students made unsupported assertions (e.g., that the speaker in the poem is rejecting city life) or left considerable gaps, concentrating on only a few elements. There was often a failure to integrate the comments on various elements into an argument supporting an overall interpretation. Sometimes students pinpointed examples of punctuation, enjambement, etc., without analyzing their significance and effects.


Somewhat fewer students elected to write about the prose passage but many handled it well, appreciating the narrative stance and some of the subtleties of characterization. Some neglected the more minor characters, Pinky and the grandmother, but almost all saw the correspondences between Kulfi and Sampath, and they made a good job of analyzing the social pressures of the town on a character like Sampath. Too few noted pace and the implications of Sampath’s appreciation of nature, as shown in his metaphor of the wind in the foliage. Almost none, sad to say, noted anything “Indian” in the diction of the brief dialogues, particularly in the language of Mr. Chawla.

In responding to the poem, many addressed both content and literary features with insight, appreciating in particular the tone and the way in which structure echoes ideas and attitudes.


For once they were able to make convincing comments on the way in which punctuation and enjambement contribute. Some failed to see that the “dear old ladies” were metaphorical, but many dealt well with the use of personification at several points, and many really seemed to relish and even to share the speaker’s delight in the scene. It was disappointing that so few made much of the ideas and images relating to nature, but some dealt very well with the overlapping of the natural, the human and the man-made as perceived by the speaker. It was felt that responses to the last few lines were a kind of “litmus test” which separated the best from other candidates.


A large number of students showed competence and even pleasure in the task of writing about these pieces. Whatever has produced this result should continue as classroom practice.

There are, however, still some students who trot out a list of techniques, citing an instance of their use but failing to show an appreciation of their effects and the way the contribute to the total impact of the piece, but virtually every candidate did at least make reference to the writer’s craft and choices.

Students also need to be urged to avoid excessive length. Perhaps more careful planning and pruning of ideas before beginning to write would avoid the verbosity and shapelessness which detracts from many commentaries. Legible handwriting is also vital to communication, and proofreading would in many cases create a far less careless impression. Remember that two out of five assessment criteria reward organization/development and expression: well-shaped and well-written arguments earn high marks on these criteria.

Students need ample practice with a variety of materials, sometimes under timed (or self-timed) conditions, in order to become comfortable with the task of commentary.

Standard Level Paper Two Component grade boundaries Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mark range: 0 - 4 5 - 8 9 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 19 20 - 25

General comments

As the candidate cohort grows in size from year to year, the chances that one set of candidates will perform significantly differently from previous cohorts become less and less likely. However, because the questions on the exam itself change and because education is in an ever-evolving process, it is worth considering the ways in which some qualities of performance persist (in both the positive and negative sense) as well as the ways that performances appear to be developing.



The most frequently identified weaknesses appeared in four areas: 1. the inability to focus on the demands of the question, 2. the paucity of relevant detail in creating an argument, 3. the substitution of plot summary or character description for argument and 4.the use of ineffective and often incorrect English. Candidates do not seem to be trained thoroughly enough in analyzing the question. In many cases, the response reflects awareness of a familiar (if not always understood) term like ‘reminiscence’ and a rush to retell the work using, if not the word itself, some semi-related synonym (like memory or past event). Questions usually contain at least two or three considerations: ‘how’, ‘by what means’, ‘to what extent’, ‘how successfully’, ‘with what effects’ and ‘how far do you agree that.’. Although the types of considerations do not change from year to year, the abilities of the candidates to address these considerations do not improve either. Although a central term of the question (for example, ‘public places’ from question 5a) might offer the security of a seemingly easy definition, the other parts of the question are often ignored (in this case, ‘the ways in which [familiar terms] are used’ and ‘the effects achieved’. Candidates often wrote about the texts at a distance instead of taking the reader into the details of the texts as the source of their evidence. Without details from the work, the knowledge and understanding usually fall flat; and when that happens, the presentation and sense of convincing argument also suffer. Papers seem to be more and more subject to weaknesses in clarity and correctness. One frequently named point is the problem of subject-verb agreement.

Levels of knowledge, understanding and skills

The candidates often showed great familiarity with their texts and wrote at great length in order to demonstrate that knowledge, signs of their taking the task seriously and their desire to succeed. Limits had to be placed of the rewarding of these skills when candidates resorted largely to laying out plot summary, character description or a series of points for which the work is generally known. In these cases the candidates often came up wanting in terms of their lack of ability to grapple with the essence of the question using analytical insights arrived at in direct response to the immediate question.

Question 1(a): This question was probably the most frequently chosen but did not necessarily produce the sharpest responses. Candidates generally associated ‘heart’ with emotions and ‘head’ with intellect. So far, so good. However, the responses to the question tended to appear in two patterns: 1) Text A appealed to the heart while Text B appealed to the head, or 2) Both Text A and Text B appealed to both the heart and head. Each design could have validity and at least seems to set out a clear direction for discussion. However, in most cases, candidates – once having stated one pattern or another – abandoned or failed to fulfill the pattern. They became entangled in contradictions concerning matters of the heart and head or ended up responding to one area and practically ignoring the other. In most cases, this meant focusing on emotions at the expense of thought. Even then, candidates seemed severely limited to recognize the presence of emotions beyond love, sympathy or empathy. They more or less disregarded less attractive emotions such as anger, envy, resentment, frustration, jealousy, spite or coldness – emotions on which so many tensions of so many works are based. A vague statement such as “He has feelings for her” seemed automatically


to suggest affection while most emotional relationships in mature literature are more complex than that. Matters of the head (sometimes completely ignored) were approached most successfully when candidates pointed out issues that were addressed in each work. However, even these issues were presented in an unhappy generic way (death, absurdity, values of society, the oppression of women etc.) rather than focusing in on the specific questions at hand (Is death a fulfillment or an escape? What is the purpose of living? Am I living a life based on false or unconsidered dreams? Am I a victim to and/or perpetrator of gender injustices?). Consequently, what ought to have been quite an accessible question produced disappointingly flat and ill-considered responses. And,of course, some very good ones.

Question 1(b) It is fair to say that any time and culture of a play might have been a valid base for a response here, even those close to the familiar. Candidates who addressed the plays removed from the present day in time and from the English-speaking world (in any of its cultures) started off with plays that most clearly offered examples “not our own”. So plays such as “A Doll’s House” , “Antigone” and “The Island” had the potential to work, and often did work, well on this question. Even then, candidates had less control of the particular cultural and historical elements that set them apart than one would have expected in a response. Responses using more contemporary or familiar circumstances (such as “Streetcar Named Desire” or “Death of a Salesman”) addressed the American Dream or the changing South, describing their presence in each work but not showing how they were ‘different to [one’s] own circumstances”. Candidates often addressed the setting but did not present it in its cultural or value differences.

Question 2(a) Although only a few schools presented poetry, this question might have been the most successful of all. Oppositions and tensions are widely available for comment in most poems which also have the advantage of fore-fronting literary devices in ways that other genres do less so. Contrasts appear in all sorts of ways and most contrasts indicate some level of tension, even if it is largely under control. How these tensions created ‘lively and engaged poems’ was less well treated. It was mentioned by one examiner that schools sometimes present lesser-known poems (especially in the World Literature choice) and that it is often difficult for the examiner to find a copy of that poem, even on the internet. I am not sure how to solve this problem, but schools need to be aware of this factor.

Question 2(b) Even fewer candidates chose this open-ended question. Among the ‘what else’ that poems could offer the reader were noted historical knowledge and insight into relationships. Other less successful approaches seemed to suggest that readers (listeners) might appreciate the offering of sound, especially ‘alliteration’, although the rewards of such an offering were usually left to the imagination of the reader.

Question 3(a) Too many candidates interpreted ‘familiar’ as ‘similar’ or ‘common to the two or three works under discussion’ and so produced an essay comparing the presence and use of a common element. Some candidates did discuss stereotyped characters or themes that have appeared in writing over the ages. Often these themes were presented in too broad a form: love, women’s rights, growing up, family relations, injustice. Additionally the means by which authors took familiar (or similar) elements and used them in such a way as to produce (still) a successful work were named but not given significance in terms of their effect upon


the success of the work. Many candidates concluded that the plot or the characters (here retold or re-described, but not analyzed) were interesting and thus the work was successful.

Question 3(b) The use of the word ‘interest’ was meant, I think, to suggest engagement. That is, the candidate was probably expected to indicate how and why he/she became ‘engaged’ by a particular element of the text whether it be the work’s plot or something else. Opening up the door to plot was fair enough but in hindsight unhelpful as it perhaps made candidates think that the plot could be retold (or again characters re-described) and then deemed ‘interesting’ and that was it. Students are not usually held accountable to explaining why they find something interesting. For them, it is a matter of free choice and the freedom of choice supposedly eliminates the need to explain. Not in literary analysis however. Too few candidates were sensitive to the demands of the question.

Question 4(a) No feedback was given on this question.

4(b) I quote here the only comment made on this question. This question was addressed only “by a few candidates”. They provided interesting answers, with the candidates often looking at the use of dialogue as an effective means of characterization.”

Question 5(a) The more successful candidates made a clear distinction in definition and example between public spaces and private moments, some of the most interesting approaches showing private moments within public spaces. Novels that dealt with interior reflection worked well here for the private moments while dramas that involved public exposure also offered possibilities. Each genre offered opposite examples in the best of cases and many candidates moved back and forth with ease if not totally defined purpose. The weaker candidates described the settings without presenting them in terms of their link to the question.

Question 5(b) Few candidates actually traced the development of an element introduced early throughout the work. Many showed its reappearance at the end. Some addressed elements that were introduced in the first half of the work and considered that ‘early or at the beginning’. A common approach was to discuss the elements in the opening scene or passage (an approach that many schools seem to have adopted in response to recent exams), present their immediate effects and state that the themes continued throughout the work although few examples of the element used were presented. The repetitive nature of Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” often worked well here.

Question 5(c) It was surprising how few candidates seemed to understand the meaning of the word “reminiscence”. Examiners accepted tangential definitions such as ‘memories’ or even ‘present events recalling past ones’ giving credit when these approaches paid attention to ‘by what means’ and ‘with what effect’ – that is, to analysis and not just retelling.

Question 5(d) This question (say, as opposed to question 1(a) that might have approached the response in terms of issues or ideas in the ‘heads’ of the audience) actually called for pointing out ‘difficult questions’. Few candidates did so. Most candidates discussed themes without identifying the difficult questions raised by those themes. Some identified questions that seemed other than ‘difficult’: Should women have rights? Is the American Dream a good thing? Is Africa changing? Naturally some did formulate relevant difficult questions; but


since these notes are directed to helping future candidates and missteps cause more concern than success, the comments here are intended to keep candidates from committing avoidable errors.


• Be careful of the terms ‘relate to’ or ‘identify with’ when used to state the effects of a particular element/device on the reader or audience. More specific effects can be elicited by asking the follow-up question: What is it in the nature, behavior or problems of that character (or conflicts/joys of circumstances) that you recognize in your own experience? Or in the experience of those whom you see around you? The reader is not looking for personal anecdotes here, but rather a recognition of something of a universal nature that makes the work and/or character speak to the reader/audience. For example, several candidates made the point that they could ‘relate to’ the play “The Crucible” because they recognized the difficult struggle involved in standing up for one’s beliefs against the combined force of the community. Just saying “I could really relate to it” is empty compared to the focus of this other and more specific sort of statement.

• Candidates usually do themselves little good by writing pages and pages of text in response to a question. The result usually reflects a lack of planning and direction and, more importantly, a lack of analysis of what is being asked. It often appears that this type of response results from a candidate’s belief that if a great deal is written, it will show the examiner that the candidate knows the work. The reality is usually that it shows the examiner that the candidate has learned and reproduced a great deal of material presented in the course but that the candidate does not have the ability to judiciously select from that knowledge (often shared by the whole group) the relevant parts and then add to that elements from the work from the candidate’s on-the-spot thinking. Moreover, long papers written in haste are often illegible, a condition that is unlikely to result in much credit in any direction.

• Candidates need to be taught the conventions of correct expression in English. More and more the scripts reflect a movement toward a casual, colloquial approach to expression and mechanics.

• Candidates need practice in decoding questions and planning individual responses that take into account all the elements addressed in the question, especially those elements that have to do with ‘how’, ‘by what means’, how far’ and ‘with what effect’.

• Candidates need to prepare themselves not only in terms of knowing the texts, but also in understanding them – especially with respect to the use of literary techniques.

• Candidates need to be trained and reminded that plot summaries and character descriptions are not likely to yield high marks.


• Candidates need to be trained in terms of which questions they are allowed to answer and which texts they are allowed to use in their answers.

• Candidates need to make effective transitions between paragraphs in their papers. Words and phrases such as ‘thus’, ‘consequently’, ‘therefore’, ‘on the other hand’ and the like often connect paragraphs whose content is unrelated to these sorts of transitions. Other problematic transitions include the following: “Just the opposite to ….” , or ‘Just the same as….”, “Hence” or ‘In conclusion’. These words and phrases cannot disguise a weak argument (Criterion D).

english a1 · november 2007 subject reports english a1 overall grade boundaries higher level ....

Documents