examiners+notes

Examiner’s comments
This paper asks that students **compare** an extract from a Garmin // Quick Start Manual // to an extract from // Eats, Shoots & Leaves // by Lynne Truss. ====Criterion A: Understanding and comparison of the texts ==== In this criterion students at HL need to offer a comparison of the similarities and differences between two texts, indicate their type and purpose as well as possible contexts, and support their remarks with well-chosen references to the texts. In this particular response the student simply notes what is evident in each of the two texts. By not trying to address similarities and differences and thus playing one text against the other, the response becomes fairly shallow. The student notices that the first text is an "instruction document", but is much more vague about the purpose of the second text, which the student indicates is to "inform or convince the audience of the writer's opinion" but eventually sees that it is intended to show "where the apostrophe is used and how". There is use of specific detail (selection of verbs such as “press, touch, flip”) to support the assertion that the Garmin text is an instruction manual, and there is a clear awareness of the intended audience (the buyers of the nüvi 1300 series), but the student is less clear about the intent of // Eats, Shoots & Leaves //, though hinting that this text too instructs the audience. Though the student sees that the audience of the Truss text is most likely well educated, the support for this is tentative. Useful observations about the Truss text are made, but these observations remain at the level of assertion and lack the supportive detail offered in the discussion of the first text. A few distinctions are implied, such as a recognition of the shift in tone: the Garmin text is simply instructional without emotion, whereas the Truss text involves humour and sarcasm. The student might also have noted that both texts use outline structures to help clarify the movement from point to point, varied numeration and fonts to signpost steps of doing and thinking, and embedded examples, either visual or verbal, to clarify a point. Had these similarities been noted, the student would have seen that **both** texts are hoping to instruct their readers. A closer look at the differences between the two texts in terms of language choice, use of graphics and style would have helped support the student's assertions about the intended audiences of these two texts. The lack of a clear purpose and the tentative nature of the discussion prevent this response from receiving an adequate mark. Teachers need to encourage their students to discuss the two texts as related to one another and to seek out contextual clues. ====Criterion B: Understanding of the use and effects of stylistic features ==== This criterion asks that students show an awareness of how various stylistic features are used to construct meaning within various text types. This response shows an awareness of several stylistic features in the two texts and, in terms of the first text, attempts to analyse why a particular feature is used, for example, that the numbers with circles around them are necessary to prevent confusion when noting the part of the graphic to which they apply. However, that the graphics are central to the entire discussion of the nüvi is insufficiently explored. In the discussion of the Truss text many assertions are made (“uses a lot of adverbs”) without supportive detail. There is little or no awareness of "verbal pictures" (such as the personification of the apostrophe), literary allusions, puns and other wordplay. Though the student is aware of humour, there is no analysis of how humour is employed. And though the student spots an intellectual quality to the style, there is no close look at what makes this so. Much more careful attention needs to be given to the style of the narrative and the use of various devices such as literary references (// The Crucible //) and contemporary cultural references (Batman and Warner Brothers). Much further exploration could have been given to the use of picture and diagram in the Garmin text. This discussion has a promising start, but does not, finally, reveal an adequate understanding of the stylistic features. ====Criterion C: Organization and development ==== This criterion asks that students offer an organized and developed response, with a clear focus on the fact that this is a comparative analysis and, as such, the discussion should be balanced between the two texts. This response offers some degree of development and the ideas are expressed with coherence. However, there is little sense of balance, and the treatment of the second text is superficial. The student attempts to handle both texts equally by listing points to be considered but fails to truly develop the comparison and contrast. The student is making some good points and offering some degree of development, but better use of paragraphing and transitions would have helped to clarify the arguments. There is no attempt to draw the two texts together even in a concluding statement. It is important for teachers to note that students need to practise the art of comparison and to use structures that enable them to explore, meaningfully, one text against the other.
 * ~ Criterion ||~ A ||~ B ||~ C ||~ D ||~ Total ||
 * Marks available || 5 || 5 || 5 || 5 || 20 ||
 * Marks awarded || 2 || 2 || 2 || 3 || 9 ||

Criterion: D: Language
This criterion asks that students use clear, varied and accurate language. In this sample, the language is generally clear with an adequate degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction, despite some lapses, for example, "expensive words". Register and style are mostly appropriate to the task. There is a heavy reliance on pronouns such as “this” and “it”, and overuse of certain phrases that prevent the language from being “carefully chosen”. Nevertheless, the student's use of language shows an adequate degree of care.