AOS Section III Tips (Summarised Examiner Comments) (1 Viewer)

[sasquatch]

The following comments are from previous years HSC examiner's comments. Some people might not realise that there are comments available, or maybe can't be bothered to get/read them. A quick overview of some of the most common strengths/weaknesses exhibited within peoples responses lies below.

Better responses
• Used fresh expression in referring to the question, rather than a simple rephrasing of the question
• Demonstrated a sophisticated control of language, expression and spelling in an integrated and logical structure.
• Analysed textual features in relation to a conceptual understanding of journey.
• Avoided the necessity of repeating titles by referring to distinctive elements of texts or the composer, e.g. “Twain engages the reader…”
• Did not always list their texts in the thesis statement, finding more effective ways to introduce their material.
• Identified textual features (the how) carefully linking back to the question.
• Successfully related their texts to each other, reflecting both a conceptual understanding and technical analysis.

Weaker responses
• Tended to re-write the question as their introduction.
• Repeated phrases in their conclusion without attempting to make more thoughtful and concise responses.
• Only showed some understanding of journey.
• Identified textual features (the how), but ignored aspects of the question.
• Superficially discussed many related texts/stimulus texts, instead of discussing in depth aspects of a lesser amount of texts

Other issues
• Handwriting – illegible handwriting may impact on the flow of an argument possibly compromising marks.
• Avoid the use of acronyms/abbreviations for texts – CTRS for Crossing the Red Sea.
• If the question states “Discuss...” stronger responses are able to present ideas relating to both sides of a given argument.


Note: There is too much to list, but the above show the main strengths/weakness people have within their section III area of study responses. For more information please visit http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/ or

2005 Comments: http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2005exams/pdf_doc/english_std_adv_er_05.pdf
2004 Comments: http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2004exams/pdf_doc/english_std_adv_er_04.pdf
2003 Comments: http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/hsc_exams/hsc2003exams/pdf_doc/english_std_adv_er_03.pdf

Hope any of the above helps you out...

 

[Dr_Doom]

Thanks, You think people would know not to use acronyms lol..

I have a question, when referring to Immigrants at Central Station, 1951. Do I have to include the 1951 at the end?

 

[sasquatch]

Thanks, You think people would know not to use acronyms lol..

I have a question, when referring to Immigrants at Central Station, 1951. Do I have to include the 1951 at the end?

It was pleasing to see that many candidates heeded last year’s notes from the marking centre
regarding use of acronyms. However, there are still some candidates shortening titles and authors’
names by using clumsy acronyms such as CTRS by PS and TTWTSS. Candidates can avoid the
necessity of repeating text titles by referring to distinctive elements of the title, for example, ‘Lime-
Tree’ or ‘Immigrants’, Frost’s ‘The Road’ or referring to the author/director, as in ‘Bragg’s
text’, ‘Walker’s review’ or ‘Benigni’s film’. Writers, poets, dramatists and directors should be
referred to by their surname in full.

Id think that it would be ok do just refer to the text as "Immigrants at Central Station", the main problem i guess examiners had with it, is that they sometimes find it hard to recognise what acronyms such as "TAOHF by MT" mean, or may forget which acronym fits in with what texts, ruining the general flow of the essay.

So yeah as long as they instantly know what text your refering to, it would be fine to ignore the 1951.

 

[Dr_Doom]

Id think that it would be ok do just refer to the text as "Immigrants at Central Station", the main problem i guess examiners had with it, is that they sometimes find it hard to recognise what acronyms such as "TAOHF by MT" mean, or may forget which acronym fits in with what texts, ruining the general flow of the essay.

So yeah as long as they instantly know what text your refering to, it would be fine to ignore the 1951.

ok thanks for that.

 

[bessie]

Where it says

• Did not always list their texts in the thesis statement, finding more effective ways to introduce their material.

do any of you have ideas as to what these more effective ways could be?
Do people just jump straight into their texts or what because, thinking about it you do waste alota space.

 

[Vickie]

i think it's to do with linking your texts to one another, using the question if possible. Listing them at the start takes a fair while so i won't bother if thats what they said

 

[sasquatch]

i think it's to do with linking your texts to one another, using the question if possible. Listing them at the start takes a fair while so i won't bother if thats what they said

You are supposed to introduce your texts but what they are saying, is leave the introduction for answering the question, introducing your thesis statement, and etc. but introduce your texts maybe later in the essay, maybe like when you start talking bout the text, as your supposed to make a link to the question when discussing your texts anyway.