English Extension 1 2022 HSC exam pack

Students should:

• demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the module Literary Worlds through close engagement with the stimulus texts and the question
• consider all aspects of the question to create a world which reflects an understanding of the values and ideas about Literary Worlds common to Texts 1, 2 and 3
• create characters who represent divergent points of view
• employ narrative forms and features to compose an effective response
• demonstrate control of language and imaginative form
• communicate clearly and take care with syntax, grammar, paragraphing and punctuation.

In better responses, students were able to:

• demonstrate a sophisticated interpretation of the common ideas from the stimulus texts employ clear divergent perspectives in order to represent the ideas from the stimulus. These perspectives might have been represented through ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ voices, or through a character’s perspective at different points in their life as well as through discrete characters
• develop conceptual ideas through the divergence of the perspectives, lifting the response beyond a personal dispute
• develop a well-crafted and engaging literary world, demonstrating sophisticated imaginative writing skills
• incorporate the ideas common to the stimulus and/or the divergent perspectives as central to the piece. These responses had textual integrity, were sustained and coherent. Some highly skilful responses experimented with form to represent the divergent perspective, others composed engaging linear narratives
• create an authentic voice, use imagery, vivid setting and convincing motif which were often features of highly skilful responses.

Areas for students to improve include:

• addressing all parts of the question including making specific links to the stimulus
• demonstrating an understanding of the purpose of their imaginative writing and how to use the tools of fiction (such as figurative language, symbolism, voice, motif) in order to engage with the stimulus and the question
• developing a sustained piece of imaginative writing within the time allocated
• ensuring the clarity and coherence of their response.

General feedback

Students should:

• develop a strong understanding of all aspects of the elective description, its central ideas and its directives in preparation for writing
• read the question carefully and ensure all components are addressed in the construction of a thesis
• judiciously select related text(s) that provide scope to respond to the question with sophistication
• use a coherent structure that allows them to clearly express their knowledge and understanding of the texts
• demonstrate an understanding of form and authorial purpose in a cohesive and integrated response that reflects a holistic understanding of the texts
• examine the role of contextual values and their impact on form and purpose
• respond to the question with an authentic voice that meaningfully integrates the conceptual metalanguage into the response
• sustain close analysis of texts by selecting relevant examples that reinforce the argument and respond to the terms of the question
• use a coherent structure that allows them to clearly express their knowledge and understanding of the texts
• carefully plan their response.

Elective 1: Literary homelands

In better responses, students were able to:

• advance a conceptual line of argument, that synthesised the elements of the elective and the question into an informed and insightful response
• purposefully integrate a range of perspectives into their argument and support their assertions with informed evidence drawn from throughout the text
• evaluate elements of form such as epistolary novel, or poetic style as well as language devices
• offer a tightly synthesised discussion of texts and concepts in a dense and layered manner
• embed the contextual values of each work throughout their response.

Areas for students to improve include:

• making connections between texts and/or ideas to achieve cohesion in the response.
• consistently engaging with the question, making it central to the argument
• considering both the form and language of the text
• reviewing the relevance of the literary devices that they choose to analyse to the question and the purpose of the text
• making a thoughtful and informed choice of related text, considering how it might engage with the elective and how it might sit alongside their prescribed text choices
• drawing on a wide range of relevant examples from the whole text.

Elective 2: Worlds of upheaval

In better responses, students were able to:

• articulate the competing points of view within texts and how the contextual upheaval in which it was composed impacted these perspectives
• examine the composers’ construction of voice within texts and how they present competing points of view through the use of language and form
• articulate how competing points of view are reflected, reconciled or left unresolved
• judiciously analyse texts in order to build a thesis, rather than making superficial links with unrelated quotes and language features
• balance their analysis of all three texts and sustain their argument.

Areas for students to improve include:

• ensuring that they engage with all parts of the question
• maintaining a consistent argument
• ensuring that their choice of related text stems from a period of upheaval and is analysed in response to the question with the same insight and depth as their prescribed texts
• integrating stronger contextual links within their analysis, aligning with the requirements of the elective.

Elective 3: Reimagined worlds

In better responses, students were able to:

• equally explore each text by constructing balanced arguments framed by an insightful thesis that was maintained throughout the response
• purposefully include all aspects of the question by considering how composers interrogate contextual values, and position responders to consider the complexity of textual construction informed by cultural constructs.
• demonstrate a holistic understanding of the texts by providing sustained textual analysis of a wide range of examples to develop their ideas and arguments.
• control language fluency and sophistication by purposefully developing the literary and conceptual terms of ‘Reimagined Worlds’ and appropriately varying vocabulary
• construct a coherent response that linked ideas conceptually instead of fragmenting continuity with discrete and unconnected ‘mini’ extended responses.

Areas for students to improve include:

• constructing a thesis that demonstrates causality by addressing all facets of the question in the introductory paragraph
• understanding the relationship between contextual influences, authorial purpose and textual construction
• selecting related texts that are consistent with the parameters of the elective. For example, Pride and Prejudice is not a text that effectively represents the ‘Reimagined Worlds’ elective
• choosing related texts that are substantial and deeply linked to the key ideas of the elective
• exploring a range of textual examples within each text rather than relying on predictable examples or only referring to the early stages of a text, which limits opportunities for more meaningful discussion. For instance, some responses narrowed their discussion to the opening lines of poems to frame their responses
• considering the significance of authorial context in shaping a composer’s interrogation of values.

Elective 4: Literary mindscapes

In better responses, students were able to:  

• synthesise all the elements of the question and craft a sophisticated, personal evaluation of the constructed nature of narrative voices
• articulate a well-established and sustained thesis with a strong, cohesive line of argument
• judiciously select textual references which supported evaluation of how form and language are used to represent composers’ values.

Areas for students to improve include:  

• ensuring they address every part of the question and delineate between the composer themselves and the narrative voice used in the construction of a mindscape
• being incisive in their choice of textual references, in order to maximise the impact of the evaluation. Responses with excessive quotation were less successful than those which incorporated fewer quotes coupled with rigorous analysis
• extending vocabulary to avoid repetition and enhance sophistication.

Elective 5: Intersecting worlds

In better responses, students were able to:

• respond to key elements of the question providing a well-sustained line of argument that demonstrates how constructed voices can shape the competing points of view central to the elective
• recognise how these points of view facilitate either reflection, reconciliation or irresolution in the text
• provide a conceptual analysis of the prescribed and related text(s), that supports and sustains the central thesis
• offer a differentiated approach to the texts, demonstrating how their particular contexts or ideological frameworks bring unique perspectives to the argument
• create a clear, well-structured and cohesive response addressing the specific terms of the question.

Areas for students to improve include:

• focusing on the key terms and answering all parts of the question  
• providing a more conceptual analysis of the prescribed and related text(s), rather than a simplified or descriptive approach
• giving greater consideration to the opportunities for differentiation that the studied texts provide, and how context and ways of thinking shape their perspectives
• use language that is more consistently conceptual, rather than descriptive or reductive.