examiners+comments

Students at both SL and HL are presented with the same examination paper and questions for paper 2. Students have their essays marked against different criteria that are specifically tailored to the SL and HL courses. Therefore, for the purposes of this teacher support material, one student essay has been marked against the criteria for both SL and HL. It is hoped that teachers will derive useful insights from seeing how the same essay measures up to each different set of criteria. Suggested sources for the text: Sophocles. 2005. // Antigone //. Ed. Moliken, P and Osbourne, E. Translated by Thomas, JE. Delaware, US. Prestwick House, Inc. Fugard, A. 1993. // The Township Plays: No-Good Friday; Nongogo; The Coat; Sizwe Bansi is Dead; The Island //. 2000 edition. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press. ===Examiner’s comments (for SL) === **Note:** As the same paper is offered at both SL and HL, the following comments apply to the same student response as for HL. However, that response is here marked against the SL criteria to highlight the differences in the expectations between HL and SL. The students were to write on the following question. > "Literature always has a political purpose; its aim is never simply to entertain." > Referring closely to at least two of the works in your study, show how far you agree or disagree with this statement. In this question students are being asked to focus on a prompt that has two parts. First, they must consider whether literature simply entertains or has a further moral/political purpose. The students must then address the prompt in terms of their study of both the works from part 3: literature—texts and contexts. ====Criterion A: Knowledge and understanding ==== Though the knowledge of part 3 works is substantially illustrated in this response, the emphasis on context expected from a study of literature in this part of the course is lacking. The student, though mentioning apartheid South Africa, fails to develop that issue sufficiently in the discussion of law and power in // The Island //, and though some cultural reference ("lure of money" and "Zeus himself") is evident in the discussion of // Antigone //, the response falls short of offering an **adequate** awareness of how context affects meaning. As a result, only a **general** understanding of the relationship between text and context is offered. ====Criterion B: Response to the question ==== The expectations at SL for this criterion are controlled to a degree by the phrase "the **main**expectations of the question". A much closer look at the question is expected at HL. Thus, at SL, this response satisfies the demands of "good understanding and awareness of the main expectations of the question" as the student clearly takes the stance that writers have moral/political purposes in terms of the issues of power and oppression in these texts and that these issues are then heightened by the writers making the oppressed "heroic". There is also acknowledgment of the role of entertainment, though that aspect receives limited attention. Only at the level 5 descriptor would a SL student be expected to look more fully at the subtleties of the question. ====Criterion C: Understanding of the use and effects of stylistic features ==== This student is quite careful to include an analysis of literary features in this response and offers enough sense of their contexts and effects to satisfy the descriptor of "a good awareness and illustration of stylistic features, with **adequate** understanding of their effects". Exploring some of the subtleties of the dramatic contexts of these works would have shown a "good" understanding of their effects and have allowed for a mark of 5 at SL. ====Criterion D: Organization and development ==== This response is clearly organized and offers a usable structure to sequence the ideas: oppression in// The Island //, oppression in // Antigone //, power in // The Island //, power in // Antigone //, John and Winston as heroes, and Antigone as a hero. This structure is set up well and the ideas in each section are developed. However, the treatment of these topics tends to fall into "mini essays" and much of the logic of the argument being offered (both from text to text and within the various parts) is not stated but left to the reader to infer. In trying to approach the three topics as "themes" the student clouds their usefulness as points by which the address of the question is to be achieved. The focus is therefore somewhat lacking, although the student has done just enough to attain a 4 in this criterion.
 * ~ Criterion ||~ A ||~ B ||~ C ||~ D ||~ E ||~ Total ||
 * Marks available || 5 || 5 || 5 || 5 || 5 || 25 ||
 * Marks awarded || 3 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || 19 ||

Criterion E: Language
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">The standards for language at SL and HL are the same—see the examiner’s comments for HL. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; display: block; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline;">

Suggested sources for the text: Sophocles. 2005. // Antigone //. Ed. Moliken, P and Osbourne, E. Translated by Thomas, JE. Delaware, US. Prestwick House, Inc. Fugard, A. 1993. // The Township Plays: No-Good Friday; Nongogo; The Coat; Sizwe Bansi is Dead; The Island //. 2000 edition. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press.

<span style="color: #888888; font-family: inherit; font-size: 21.600000381469727px; vertical-align: baseline;">Examiner’s comments (for HL)
**Note:** As the same paper is offered at both standard and HL, the following comments apply to the same student response as for SL. However, that response is here marked against the HL criteria to highlight the differences in the expectations between HL and SL. The students were to write on the following question. > "Literature always has a political purpose; its aim is never simply to entertain." > Referring closely to at least two of the works in your study, show how far you agree or disagree with this statement. In this question students are being asked to focus on a prompt that has two parts. First, they must consider whether literature simply entertains or has a further moral/political purpose. The students must then address the prompt in terms of their study of at least two works from part 3: literature—texts and contexts.
 * ~ Criterion ||~ A ||~ B ||~ C ||~ D ||~ E ||~ Total ||
 * Marks available || 5 || 5 || 5 || 5 || 5 || 25 ||
 * Marks awarded || 2 || 3 || 3 || 3 || 4 || 15 ||

<span style="color: #111111; font-family: inherit; font-size: 18.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;">Criterion A: Knowledge and understanding
The key to a high score in this criterion is the ample and relevant awareness of context (and its effect upon meaning) on the part of the student. This criterion asks that students examine their literature carefully in the light of the various contextual elements that come into play in the works. Basic knowledge of the text is certainly demonstrated in this response, as seen in the numerous specific references to both texts. Additionally, there is some awareness of context present—the student mentions the setting of // The Island // (both geographic and temporal) and also refers directly to the topics of “oppression” and “power and the law”, suggesting an understanding of the culture at work in both plays. There is an initial mention of apartheid as well. However, the relevance of these contexts is merely implied in the ensuing discussion, an implication that is much more evident in the analysis of // The Island // than in the analysis of // Antigone //. Knowing the setting and overall culture behind a play is helpful, but there is no further exploration of the ways in which those socio-historical “places” can help the reader extract meaning. Demonstrated understanding of the two texts is therefore only superficial. These two texts are well suited for use in the language and literature course as they offer ample room for a discussion of the influence of context in the shaping of meaning. The student could have kept to the forefront the specific aspects of apartheid South Africa evident in the play (the courts, the prison conditions, specific references to the trips to and from the island) and discussed how those elements enabled Fugard to dramatize his moral/political purpose. The response could have emphasized the fact that Fugard saw the significance of the role of the arts (stressed by the play within a play) in lifting a local and temporal situation to a universal one with wider audience appeal. That Fugard added his own elements of entertainment to the dramatic appeal of the traditional story offers further room for discussion. The student could then have drawn parallels to the fact that Greek theatre was a means of exposing its audience to social, religious and political issues and offer an exploration of those contexts in Sophocles' // Antigone //, as evidenced, for example, in the lines of the Chorus. The student could then have focused more closely on the religious and political contexts that inform the argument between Creon and Antigone, examining Sophocles' moral/ political stance. Possibly a study of two translations would have helped inform the meaning of the play in a manner relevant to this question. Comments about the role of women could have been prefaced as a modern understanding of the play, showing more clearly the student's awareness of the impact of audience on meaning. It will be important for students in the language and literature course to keep in mind at all times that their responses must develop from a close awareness of context. Students must be reminded in preparation for paper 2 that this awareness of context (and its role in helping students understand the work) is fully 20% of the mark. At no time should students feel compelled to pack the page with bits of historical minutiae; on the other hand, all texts come “wrapped up” in a social and historical context that can aid the student who is truly exploring all manners of extracting meaning (and approaching the question at hand).

<span style="color: #111111; font-family: inherit; font-size: 18.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;">Criterion B: Response to the question
This criterion asks that students be clearly aware of all elements of the question and respond to those demands. This response generally addresses the issue of writers having a "moral or political purpose", but the second part of the prompt, the "never simply to entertain", is addressed only briefly with regard to the "spectacle" and effects such as humour. The student doesn't take advantage of the opportunity to establish that it is entertainment that provides the platform from which writers can convey their views, that humour and pathos are a means to reach the hearts and minds of the viewers, that Fugard makes particular use of this effect, deliberately asking the audience to look at the significance of the arts, and that Sophocles too uses pathos and humour to explore issues of power and authority against a moral backdrop. There is also a real issue with the vagueness with which the “political purpose” of each text is addressed. Power, oppression and the law are all viable topics for discussion here, but without situating those topics within a larger and more profound context, the analysis sometimes comes off as superficial. (While the student would not be doubly penalized for not discussing context, this makes its importance quite clear, as an understanding of context would surely inform this area as well.) However, there are remarks about the play’s effects upon the audience, along with an implied understanding of what serves as simply “entertainment” in the text versus the “political purpose”. For these reasons, this response offers an adequate awareness of the expectations of the question, not moving further into some of the "subtleties" embedded therein.

<span style="color: #111111; font-family: inherit; font-size: 18.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;">Criterion C: Understanding of the use and effects of stylistic features
This criterion asks that students be aware of the various stylistic features employed in a text and examine how such devices help to construct meaning. As such, the discussion of stylistic features should also take into account various contextual influences such as minimalist theatre as opposed to Greek theatre. There should be a clear awareness that the conventions of the two types of theatre are quite different and make a different impact on the audiences of their times and in the present. Thus, while this student is careful to keep a focus on literary features throughout the response, there is a tendency to treat the plays on the same level of interpretation. There is some good discussion of how various features in // The Island // create meaning, but there are only some hints at the Greek theatrical tradition (the references to hubris and downfall) and, instead, the comments are more reliant on characterization. However, throughout the response there is a consistent awareness of the context of theatre—that there is an audience watching and reacting to a play. Overall, the response to criterion C is adequate. One note of caution: the term “theme” is often misused by students as a catch-all. Teachers need to emphasize the differences between “theme”, “topic” and “motif” to help students understand these literary features as precisely as possible.

<span style="color: #111111; font-family: inherit; font-size: 18.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;">Criterion D: Organization and development
This criterion asks that students offer a logical and developed response. This particular response is structured around the three "themes" that the student sees as relating to the political purposes of the plays. Though "oppression, power and the law, and heroism" offer points of focus, they do not work as a logical progression of ideas, but instead form three separate units that almost read as three separate essays. The link of these topics to an underlying political message is not always clear, especially for Sophocles, and the movement from one topic to the next lacks useful transitions. The discussion of "power", in particular, is somewhat uneven and is not well integrated into the larger ideas being explored. It would have been better if the student had clearly established the "moral or political purpose" of each of the two playwrights and structured the argument in such a manner as to keep a clear focus on those purposes throughout. Thus, while there is adequate focus, structure and development, the response lacks a good focus and a logical sequence.

<span style="color: #111111; font-family: inherit; font-size: 18.399999618530273px; vertical-align: baseline;">Criterion E: Language
The final descriptor asks that students use language that is clear, varied and accurate. The language in this response is clear and carefully chosen; the register is appropriate, and the style is suitable for a literary analysis and reflects a confident handling of literary terms. There are, however, moments of error and awkwardness of expression that prevent the language from being characterized as precise or highly accurate.