English Advanced 2020 HSC exam pack

Question 1

In better responses, students were able to:

• clearly explain how the texts communicated ideas about being creative using detailed evidence from both texts
• demonstrate an understanding of storytelling, creativity and the construction of creative texts.

Areas for students to improve include:

• demonstrating an understanding of the ways in which the specific language forms and features of each text convey ideas about being creative
• providing relevant and judiciously selected textual references that support the ideas about being creative
• ensuring that both texts are addressed in a reasonably balanced manner.

Question 2

In better responses, students were able to:

• provide an effective explanation of how the poem explores the power of storytelling using relevant textual evidence
• demonstrate an understanding of how the power of storytelling involves a movement from dislocation to connection.

Areas for students to improve include:

• addressing how the power of storytelling is explored through the use of specific language forms and features
• considering the complexities of the text in terms of emotions that emerge from shared and personal experiences
• demonstrating an understanding of the broad range of human experiences explored in the poem.

Question 3

In better responses, students were able to:

• clearly explain the multifaceted experience of laughter using detailed supporting evidence
• engage actively with the text and provide examples of how different types of laughter convey the multiple human experiences and emotions.

Areas for students to improve include:

• providing detailed explanations and relevant textual evidence
• providing a clear view on human experience and laughter that moves beyond restating the question
• demonstrating an understanding of the human experience(s) in the text.

Question 4

In better responses, students were able to:

• demonstrate strong understanding of the relationship between identity and place
• articulate ideas with clarity and depth
• use relevant textual evidence to form a cohesive response.

Areas for students to improve include:

• avoiding describing or recounting elements of the text
• analysing the representation of the relationship between identity and place in the extract and how this may involve multiple levels of human connection.

Students should:

• respond explicitly to the question, ensuring that all elements are addressed in a balanced and consistent manner
• develop a deep understanding of their prescribed text
• demonstrate understanding of the prescribed text through evidence and examples from across the text, judiciously selected to support their argument
• organise and structure a cohesive argument
• compose a sustained, cohesive and structured response with controlled expression, purposeful and evaluative language and an authentic voice.

In better responses, students were able to:

• purposefully address the key terms of the question in a consistent and balanced way
• build a convincing thesis that evaluated how stories effectively reveal the shared and personal nature of experiences
• consider how the textual form, features and language of the prescribed text are used to tell stories and reveal meaning
• explain how the audience is positioned by the text’s construction, with particular consideration of form and genre.

Areas for students to improve include: 

• ensuring they respond to the full scope of the question
• developing a line of argument that deliberately addresses the specific elements of the question without relying on generic statements from the module description
• evaluating the author’s intent and the effect of their compositional choices on the audience
• analysing, rather than describing, how the text has been composed
• using the metalanguage of form. 

General feedback

Students should:

• engage with all aspects of the question
• interpret and apply knowledge of the module
• develop a strong and sustained thesis in response to the question
• demonstrate a holistic understanding of the texts through detailed and well-chosen textual references and effective and accurate contextual examples
• engage with the texts on a personal level
• balance and integrate contextual and textual knowledge
• develop a detailed and coherent individual response
• use clear and effective topic sentences and paragraphs
• write clearly and legibly.

In better responses, students were able to:

• demonstrate personal and thoughtful engagement with the whole question
• frame responses around a clear, highly relevant, personal thesis that provided scope to generate a considered, thoughtful discussion
• demonstrate a detailed understanding of context, including where composers may have criticised or rejected aspects of their own context
• differentiate between social, historical and cultural contexts
• show a deep and individual understanding of the texts and make effective use of appropriate references to the texts
• reveal a strong understanding of the connections between the texts
• maintain a balanced and synthesised analysis of the text pairing
• unpack the concept of textual conversation
• offer an extended and comprehensive analysis of texts and context
• use evaluative language in a confident and authoritative manner to consolidate their argument
• demonstrate a skilful command of language and structure.

Areas for students to improve include:

• addressing all elements of the question and referring to the statement in an explicit manner
• considering the set question carefully and planning the development of their thesis and argument before they start writing
• developing a thorough and cohesive thesis
• adapting knowledge to suit the question as opposed to reproducing a generic, thematic-style response
• avoiding ‘topping and tailing’ where they respond to the question in the introduction and conclusion, and use a pre-learnt response in the body
• demonstrating detailed knowledge of their texts
• building a discussion that is focused on the intertextual conversation of the pair of texts as opposed to the texts in isolation
• avoiding generalised statements about context that do not contribute to the development of the discussion
• discussing texts in an evaluative and analytical way, rather than a descriptive way
• considering and analysing how meaning is shaped at a whole text level, rather than dealing with text references in an isolated way at sentence/scene/stanza level
• developing an integrated response which deals with the textual conversation, rather than dealing with the texts independently without making appropriate links
• ensuring that there is a balanced treatment of the two texts
• referring accurately to the contextual influences of the texts
• developing an integrated analysis of textual form and purpose rather than focusing on themes
• developing a holistic awareness of the specific, and still relevant, conversations generated by both texts
• sustaining a unified argument
• using metalanguage appropriately to enhance their argument
• demonstrating control of register and sophisticated vocabulary.

Shakespearean drama and film – William Shakespeare, King Richard III and Al Pacino, Looking for Richard

In better responses, students were able to:

• develop a perceptive thesis that clearly addressed all parts of the statement/question in considering the pairing of the texts and the conversation that emerges
• demonstrate an understanding of Shakespeare’s and Pacino’s social, cultural and political/historical contexts in relation to each composer’s purpose and the values being explored
• skilfully discuss how Shakespeare and Pacino use their textual form in order to achieve their purposes
• integrate well-selected textual evidence throughout their responses that supported their thesis in response to the idea that the ‘later text is often seen as a shadow, lacking the originality and power of the earlier’
• use evaluative language to address the requirements of the question.

Areas for students to improve include:

• responding to the question in an evaluative manner rather than a restating
• developing a thesis that demonstrates a personal engagement with the textual conversation that emerges from the pair of texts
• demonstrating an understanding of postmodernism and how it relates to Pacino’s approach to form
• demonstrating a broad understanding of King Richard III,as opposed to a narrow discussion of a few key scenes
• demonstrating understanding of Pacino’s purpose beyond making Shakespeare more accessible to a modern audience
• providing a balanced discussion of the texts rather than a focus just on the docudrama
• developing a conceptual approach that explores the textual conversation that emerges through the pairing of the text rather than reducing discussion to simplistic themes such as ambition and duplicity
• integrating discussion of the thesis throughout the response rather than addressing it in a tokenistic manner in the introduction and conclusion
• ensuring that they understand the difference between values and themes.

Prose fiction and film – Virginia Woolf, Mrs Dalloway and Stephen Daldry, The Hours

In better responses, students were able to:

• address the qualifier, ‘To what extent?’ in an articulate manner
• demonstrate a detailed understanding of context, differentiating between social, historical and cultural contexts and how these affect each text
• discuss both texts in an evaluative and analytical way, rather than a descriptive way.

Areas for students to improve include:

• articulating to what extent the statement is true
• avoiding reliance on the discussion of themes
• demonstrating a holistic understanding of the module description and the textual conversation.

Prose fiction and prose fiction – Albert Camus, The Stranger and Kamel Daoud, The Meursault Investigation

In better responses, students were able to:

• acknowledge the value of text pairing in the introduction
• provide a personal stance generated by a deep understanding of the Algerian context and their understanding of racism and ‘the other’ in colonised countries
• provide insightful, explicit, integrated contextual analysis, which then provided a framework for a sustained response
• analyse each text from an ontological perspective, thus initiating a philosophical discussion stimulated by the contextual underpinnings of the Algerian war
• link each composer’s purpose to the historical context and the role of absurdist literature in literary canons.

Areas for students to improve include:

• engaging with the question explicitly in the introduction
• providing a personal thesis generated by the underpinnings of the Algerian context, and referring to this throughout the response to facilitate coherence
• making consistent, integrated references to the Algerian background and associated colonisation problems without lapsing into an historical account
• avoiding making assertions and relying on recount
• avoiding writing ‘two essays’ with sparse synthesis in the conclusion, which fails to recognise the purpose of the module.

Poetry and drama – John Donne, John Donne: A Selection of His Poetry and Margaret Edson, W;t

In better responses, students were able to:

• develop and sustain a thesis that engages skilfully with the statement through an exploration of key ideas, including mortality, intellectualism and human connection
• adopt a position in relation to the statement using detailed and integrated textual referencing to support or challenge the assertion that W;t was a ‘shadow’ of Donne’s poetry through evaluating the ‘power’ and/or ‘originality’ of each text
• skilfully evaluate the relationship between texts and contexts, particularly by exploring religion, spirituality and human connection
• provide perceptive, detailed and integrated analysis of the textual features of each form in a skilful response
• demonstrate confident and sustained control of language.

Areas for students to improve include:

• demonstrating a clearer understanding of the context of the play
• specifically engaging with the question by evaluating notions of power and originality in relation to texts and contexts.

Poetry and film – John Keats, The Complete Poems and Jane Campion, Bright Star

In better responses, students were able to:

• argue that Campion’s homage to Keats was informed by a postmodern feminist context and uses form to deliver an equally powerful and original text that re-imagines Keats’s Romantic poetry for a contemporary audience
• write with confidence and flair, reflecting genuine and personal engagement with the texts, module and question.

Areas for students to improve include:

• providing a balanced analysis of both texts rather than favouring Bright Star at the expense of a detailed discussion of Keats’s poetry
• broadening their examination of the pairing beyond simple explanations of love or mortality.

Poetry and poetry –  Sylvia Plath, Ariel and Ted Hughes, Birthday Letters

In better responses, students were able to:

• holistically interpret the stimulus statement and evaluate it in light of the unique contextual relationship of the Plath–Hughes textual pairing
• recognise the intersection of the broader social and personal contexts of both poets and use this to inform their interpretation and analysis of the poetry
• present nuanced and perceptive readings of the poems supported with aptly chosen textual references.

Areas for students to improve include:

• balancing discussion of the contexts of both poets
• recognising the expansive political and philosophical insights regarding the post-WWII milieu of Plath’s poetry rather than limiting discussion to gender roles only
• recognising the complexity and humanity expressed in Hughes’s poems rather than limiting them to a simplistic defence of his actions
• quoting accurately and incorporating quotes appropriately.

Shakespearean drama and prose fiction – William Shakespeare, The Tempest and Margaret Atwood, Hag-Seed

In better responses, students were able to:

• develop, sustain and explore a plausible thesis throughout the response by selecting textual evidence that was relevant, revealing and accurate
• integrate an understanding of influential social and personal context throughout their analysis
• use evaluative language skilfully and use metalanguage to interpret meaning and analyse textual references
• explore a range of ideas spanning the texts and contexts to determine the significance of the textual conversation.

Areas for students to improve include:

• using knowledge of the texts, contexts, literary/language techniques and module description to answer the question
• ensuring that textual references are accurate
• developing competence in the use of evaluative language.

Students should:

• demonstrate their understanding of Module C and use it in a way that is relevant to the question
• address the examination question when crafting a response, paying particular attention to the stimulus
• avoid creating, rewriting or appropriating a response linked to the prescribed texts if this approach does not align with the specific question
• be aware of the mark value for the question and the implications for the structure and complexity of the response
• carefully consider their audience, purpose, context and form when crafting a voice, setting, character and/or event
• use effective time management in responding to the question
• use clear, legible handwriting.

In better responses, students were able to:

• compose a sustained and engaging piece of imaginative writing that skilfully used the extract as a beginning
• engage with the key words and phrases in the extract, including, ‘A person’s secrets’, ‘things they leave behind’, ‘uncovered secrets’ and ‘words and ideas … Dry and dead as dust’
• compose a response that continued the tone of the extract in an authentic way and developed credible voices and/or characters that derived from the concepts of the extract
• use the extract in a metaphorical and conceptual way
• craft language skilfully to compose an engaging piece of imaginative writing. This may have involved aspects of various types of texts studied in the module (such as discursive writing); however, better responses always stayed close to the ideas in the extract
• evoke and sustain ideas and emotions in the reader with power and precision, by crafting their language through engaging figurative, rhetorical and linguistic devices – particularly imagery, authentic narrative voice, characterisation and tone
• demonstrate skilful control of language and structure throughout their response, appropriate to audience, purpose, context and form.

Areas for students to improve include:

• engaging closely with the question and stimulus in authentic ways to engage the reader
• continuing the stimulus as a significant aspect of their writing rather than inserting a perfunctory or implied reference to the extract, or adapting part of the extract to their prepared characters and settings
• avoiding literal interpretations of the stimulus by engaging with the extract in a metaphorical or conceptual way
• developing and representing engaging and complex ideas
• creating a believable and engaging voice or character that draws the reader into the world of their piece
• avoiding gender stereotyping and familiar narratives that may be lacking depth, are simplistic or cliched
• experimenting more with structure, avoiding a straight linear structure by using flashbacks and memories to further shape and develop character effectively
• developing their own authorial, original voice and avoiding emulating the voice of a writer from the prescribed text(s) unless it is specifically relevant to the question
• structuring a response, using one or more of the writing styles, with an emphasis on ‘crafting’ their writing for a specific audience, purpose, context and form
• avoiding derivative responses, such as recounts of the plots of films or books, which do not demonstrate imagination or crafting of language
• developing clarity, cohesion and skilful control of language to engage the reader.