Every year, the IBO releases examiner reports which offer valuable insights for teachers and students for each type of assessment. These can be turned into a useful guide what to do and NOT do on exams.
Standard Level
Criterion A
Candidates must deal with the whole text - not just part - it is important to see it in its overall context. They must keep close focus on the passage throughout and be specific and detailed; all comments should only be applicable to this passage and should not be general in nature.The need for close referencing to support all comments and ideas presented; the deconstruction of visual texts, especially the use of visual metaphor and the need to connect responses to the context must occur to score more highly for criterion A. Candidates are also advised to be more specific in their explanation of target audience as this seemed to be a weak area in this session in relation to both texts. More time may need to be spent on helping candidates be more specific in identifying audience and context. Teachers should also remind candidates of what context of a text entails and to ensure a discussion regarding audience and how this is influenced by the context.
Candidates must understand and articulate the effects of stylistic features beyond the generic, for example; to grab the reader's attention, to entertain, to inform etc. This is a major concern and over the last few years had seemed to improve but this year the analysis of stylistic effects was not done well.
Candidates must avoid device spotting and teachers need to help candidates understand what is expected by "the effects on the audience" for criteria B. Candidates should not only know stylistic features, but they should be able to explain their purpose in the given text.
Candidates must avoid vague, descriptive analysis and try to be as specific as possible in their explanation of stylistic features and their effects. They must analyse and not describe. Candidates also seemed to fall back on explaining technical terms before giving an example and this is not an efficient use of words and is not needed. When a text has both visuals and words the visual aspects should not be focused on at the expense of textual analysis
Criterion C
This year many candidates spent too long planning and writing drafts and did not leave enough time to write adequate commentaries. Candidates need help to have more time management as part of planning in an examination setting. Candidates also need help to develop a strategy and provide a framework for their argument or approach to analysis. They need to develop and present a clear thesis statement under exam conditions in order to provide a basic direction for the argument of the response. They should try to have some thread that holds the answer together. Teachers should continue to work on explaining the need for an overarching argument that ties the commentary together. Formulaic organization should be discouraged. It is clear that some candidates arrive at the exam with a template into which they simply inject content. It makes their responses much weaker than they would otherwise be. Transitional phrases are often used without a clear understanding of their meaning. For example, "Firstly, secondly, thirdly...in conclusion" when the ideas explored are not lists and the conclusion does not conclude.
Criterion D
Candidates have improved in this area with many in the 3-4 range but there are still repeated errors that teachers should work on in preparing their students for the examination:
Help candidates not to describe but to analyze. Attention to technical accuracy with particular attention to correct sentence structure, use of apostrophes and semi-colons.
Teach candidates to proof-read work for errors before submission in order to correct basic errors such as: tense and number agreement, spelling, article use, informal register.
Criterion A and B
For both texts, candidates appeared to have difficulty identifying and being concise about the target audience and context. Candidates also had difficulty backing up their assertions with evidence. Examiners reported "vague, unspecific answers that were not adequately supported by reference to the text". For text 1, for example, examiners reported that the audience was often given as "anyone interested in science", and for text 2, many candidates identified the audience erroneously as children, as a result of the cartoons. The identification of the target audience was often either very narrow or very broad.
Many candidates also struggled with identifying purpose, which tended to be very generic, basically to inform and/or entertain, and context, which was probably the most overlooked element in the texts. Some candidates wrote solely about purpose for their entire commentary.
A significant percentage of scripts reached low levels of achievement, especially in Criteria B. Though candidates could identify stylistic features, they exhibited difficulty in exploring effects. Tone and mood appeared problematic, with some candidates confusing tone with style. Some candidates wrote about the writer's choice of adjectives, verbs, etc. but were not able to link those to the main devices like personification, metaphor, irony, etc. There was also a tendency to summarize the texts or to give simple explanations instead of analyzing them. There was also difficulty identifying the more detailed purpose and effects of stylistic features, with examiners looking for more than candidates' over-simplistic (and often repeated) comments about "engaging the reader". Surprisingly, candidates did struggle with reading and interpreting visual texts was an issue.
Criterion C
A significant proportion of students applied one of a range of over-structured, formulaic approaches regardless of the appropriateness of the approach to the text tackled. Misuse of linguistic and literary terminology was apparent. Similar to last year many candidates still struggle to write a strong introduction that leads the reader through their argument. There is a lack of focus on developing and keeping a strong analytical thread that links stylistic features to effect and thence to audience and purpose. Construction of a cohesive and persuasive argument within the response also presented challenges. Some candidates randomly assign connectives such as "moreover, consequently, furthermore" at the beginning of sentences/paragraphs without having clear logical links between the ideas presented.
Some candidates spent too long writing involved plans (some complete drafts) and left little time for writing and developing the commentary to an appropriate length, consequently affecting criterion C scores.
Criterion D
The use of language by candidates fell largely in the 3 to 4 range and there were not so many weak writers this year but we also did not see the sophistication of the 5 band. Although language was generally appropriate candidates do need to be reminded to use punctuation!
Help candidates not to describe but to analyze. Attention to technical accuracy with particular attention to correct sentence structure, use of apostrophes and semi-colons.
Teach candidates to proof-read work for errors before submission in order to correct basic errors such as: tense and number agreement, spelling, article use, informal register.
Higher Level
Criterion A and B
For both texts, candidates appeared to have difficulty identifying and being concise about the target audience and context. Candidates also had difficulty backing up their assertions with evidence. Examiners reported "vague, unspecific answers that were not adequately supported by reference to the text". For text 1, for example, examiners reported that the audience was often given as "anyone interested in science", and for text 2, many candidates identified the audience erroneously as children, as a result of the cartoons. The identification of the target audience was often either very narrow or very broad.
Many candidates also struggled with identifying purpose, which tended to be very generic, basically to inform and/or entertain, and context, which was probably the most overlooked element in the texts. Some candidates wrote solely about purpose for their entire commentary.
A significant percentage of scripts reached low levels of achievement, especially in Criteria B. Though candidates could identify stylistic features, they exhibited difficulty in exploring effects. Tone and mood appeared problematic, with some candidates confusing tone with style. Some candidates wrote about the writer's choice of adjectives, verbs, etc. but were not able to link those to the main devices like personification, metaphor, irony, etc. There was also a tendency to summarize the texts or to give simple explanations instead of analyzing them. There was also difficulty identifying the more detailed purpose and effects of stylistic features, with examiners looking for more than candidates' over-simplistic (and often repeated) comments about "engaging the reader". Surprisingly, candidates did struggle with reading and interpreting visual texts was an issue.
Criterion C
A significant proportion of students applied one of a range of over-structured, formulaic approaches regardless of the appropriateness of the approach to the text tackled. Misuse of linguistic and literary terminology was apparent. Similar to last year many candidates still struggle to write a strong introduction that leads the reader through their argument. There is a lack of focus on developing and keeping a strong analytical thread that links stylistic features to effect and thence to audience and purpose. Construction of a cohesive and persuasive argument within the response also presented challenges. Some candidates randomly assign connectives such as "moreover, consequently, furthermore" at the beginning of sentences/paragraphs without having clear logical links between the ideas presented.
Some candidates spent too long writing involved plans (some complete drafts) and left little time for writing and developing the commentary to an appropriate length, consequently affecting criterion C scores.
Criterion D
The use of language by candidates fell largely in the 3 to 4 range and there were not so many weak writers this year but we also did not see the sophistication of the 5 band. Although language was generally appropriate candidates do need to be reminded to use punctuation!
No comments:
Post a Comment