2018 Paper 1 (SL) Tasmania (Part 2)
If someone were to ask you about an adequate student response, you might shrug your shoulders, you might purse your lips as you think of something to say about it, or you might make some unintelligible sound that means it’s okay.
In other words, it’s adequate. The student provides enough analysis and demonstrates enough knowledge that the response isn’t bad. Nothing is technically wrong. But that’s it. There’s nothing more. You’ll find this Standard Level Paper 1 from the May 2018 examination to be an adequate response to the text on Tasmania.
So why show it to students?
Comparing and contrasting exemplars is a wonderful way for them to not only understand the assessment criteria, but to also understand the expectations of this assessment. InThinking has already published an excellent response that you can find here. In talking about the differences between the two responses, students will develop a better understanding of what you mean by close textual analysis and well-chosen references. They will see the difference between a well-developed and coherent argument versus a commentary that has an introduction, body and conclusion, but not much more than that. Those discussions about writing are essential and working with two exemplars is one way to help students reach their potential.
Sample Student Response
Criterion A - Understanding of the text - 5 marks
The analysis of the text should show an understanding of the text's purpose, its context (where this can be deduced) and a target audience. One's analysis of the text needs to be supported by relevant examples from the text.
Criterion B - Understanding of the use and effects of stylistic features- 5 marks
The analysis of the text must show an awareness of how stylistic features, such as tone, style and structure, are used to construct meaning. A good analysis comments on effects of these features on its target audience.
Criterion C - Organization and development - 5 marks
The analysis must contain coherent arguments that are well-developed. The analysis must be organized effectively.