How can this be done? (1 Viewer)

[Götterfunken]

Candidates did not always list their texts in the thesis statement and many chose more effective ways to introduce their material.

How can this be done? What excatly are these more effective ways? Do tell.

 

[hipPo3]

How can this be done? What excatly are these more effective ways? Do tell.

lists ur texts and relate it to the question ... i think thats what its meaning
in ur thesis ur making a piont .. so u should make the piont relevant to the question and have the texts to back u up.

 

[beccaxx]

we learnt to use the texts to support our argument, not arguments to join and support our texts. so in the statement, u say how u will answer the question. as it goes on, u discuss the question, and use ur texts to support the argument. NOT go thru and use the texts and discuss everything in the texts and then find links between them. make it an essay where they are supporting what u are saying, other than an in depth review and analysis of the texts which answers the questions secondary to demonstrating how well u know the text.

its about answering the question using the texts, not demonstratin ur knowledge of the texts thats the main point.


so u dont have to say every point u will use in ur introduction. just bring it in as u get to it

 

[Götterfunken]

So the BoS markers of doom won't hate me because i don't introduce my texts in my introduction? Or should I do this?

 

[goan_crazy]

So the BoS markers of doom won't hate me because i don't introduce my texts in my introduction? Or should I do this?

No do it, because that is the purpose of the introduction isn't it... to introduce your texts...

 

[beccaxx]

they wont hate u no.

u can say "blahh blahhhh bbaalllllahhhh.. and i will demonstrate the significance of this in a range of texts throughout this essay"

also, a handy hint, dont stress if u cnt get quotes word 4 word. my teacher has been markin english 4 ages n sed they skim the quotes cos they take too long, and they wana no wat ur sayin ABOUT them, not that u KNOW them

goodluck

 

[Götterfunken]

No do it, because that is the purpose of the introduction isn't it... to introduce your texts...

I've always thought it was to introduce your argument.

Thanks for the advice beccaxx! The stress-meter has gone down a bit now reading your post.

 

[Casmira]

I rang hsc helpline and she told me its a good idea to introduce them like this:

The concept of journeys is manifest in the drama Away by Michael Gow, The Town Where Time Stood Still extract by Shirley Geok-Lin Lim, IronmanOz website splash image composed by Robert Dochetry and 2061: Odyssey Three written by Arthur C Clark.

then once you end up talking about it, you only have to say their surname and any annotation (eg. Lim in 'The Town...')

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I don't understand how

not demonstratin ur knowledge of the texts

Could be seen as anything other than false advice to get everyone bad marks. That's complete crap. What else are we doing BUT showing our knowledge of the texts? That's the whole purpose of the thing.

Seriously, how on earth can you only use your texts to 'back up' an argument? Are you supposed to ramble on for page after page with an 'argument' and only make fleeting references to the texts to support it?

No. The argument must follow logically from what is IN the texts.

Her model:
A: I believe that journeys are ... (whatever the question asks)
B: Therefore, this argument is supported by (set text)

My model:
A: In (set text), (composer) uses (technique) to (produce effect) in the context of a journey.
B: Therefore journeys are (whatever the question asks).

What you are saying is illogical, and misleading. We are meant to demonstrate a sound knowledge of our texts to the marker. The 'argument' side is just embellishment; an 'angle' from which we discuss the texts.

This is NOT a university thesis, or a court case, and people should stop thinking of it as such.

 

[beccaxx]

I don't understand how



Could be seen as anything other than false advice to get everyone bad marks. That's complete crap. What else are we doing BUT showing our knowledge of the texts? That's the whole purpose of the thing.

Seriously, how on earth can you only use your texts to 'back up' an argument? Are you supposed to ramble on for page after page with an 'argument' and only make fleeting references to the texts to support it?

No. The argument must follow logically from what is IN the texts.

Her model:
A: I believe that journeys are ... (whatever the question asks)
B: Therefore, this argument is supported by (set text)

My model:
A: In (set text), (composer) uses (technique) to (produce effect) in the context of a journey.
B: Therefore journeys are (whatever the question asks).

What you are saying is illogical, and misleading. We are meant to demonstrate a sound knowledge of our texts to the marker. The 'argument' side is just embellishment; an 'angle' from which we discuss the texts.

This is NOT a university thesis, or a court case, and people should stop thinking of it as such.

it is not illogical, or misleading.

and its not about fleeting references.

its about making sure u synthesise ur essay so it answers the question. if all they wanted to know wat ur knowledge of the text they would jst say, write 25 quotes or watever.

instead they give u a question, and WOW the question changes each year. then, u use ur texts to answer the question. the text back up the points u make. i am not tryin to get ne one bad marks, indeed, synthesising ur material in ur essays and not doing it the way ppl assume u should (ie- 1st par intro 2nd par text 1 3 par text 2 etc) but insted (intro, 1st par bout first idea and how it is conveyed in even all the texts, then next idea and etc,) basically, structuring ur essay according to ur points not ur texts.
overlapping ur texts and demonstrating their relationships with each other shows a deeper analysis and engagement with all of the texts, and can answer the question in a clearer, more sophisticated way.

shut up captain gay.

 

[wrong_turn]

the intro is really hard yet really important in your essay. if you dont provide a solid intro, the foundations of your essay on first appearance has collapsed. look to hook the marker in on first go. that is do something original as the marker's comments said. many had actually gone into the exam with a fully prepared response. hence they did poorly in this respect.

second, if one uses a fully prepared response it will not answer the question. the only way to get the marks for integration is to relate it back to the question. also, when yo do this, try to do a tapestry essay in your essay.

therefore it accumlates like a snowball.

text 1 (relate to question)
text 2, text 1, relate
text 3, text 2, text 1, relate and so forth

therefore it builds a solid essay, which then covers length.

if you do this properly it should be the optimum length if you write in medium size writing.

your intro should be at least 3/4 pages long so that it answers the question and soildly introdudes the texts to formidify your defence in proving your point.

 

[silvermoon]

it is not illogical, or misleading.

and its not about fleeting references.

its about making sure u synthesise ur essay so it answers the question. if all they wanted to know wat ur knowledge of the text they would jst say, write 25 quotes or watever.

instead they give u a question, and WOW the question changes each year. then, u use ur texts to answer the question. the text back up the points u make. i am not tryin to get ne one bad marks, indeed, synthesising ur material in ur essays and not doing it the way ppl assume u should (ie- 1st par intro 2nd par text 1 3 par text 2 etc) but insted (intro, 1st par bout first idea and how it is conveyed in even all the texts, then next idea and etc,) basically, structuring ur essay according to ur points not ur texts.
overlapping ur texts and demonstrating their relationships with each other shows a deeper analysis and engagement with all of the texts, and can answer the question in a clearer, more sophisticated way.

shut up captain gay.

gh3y is right --> yes, the question changes each year...well spotted...however, the purpose of the questions do not. you are not writing an essay at university level which are focused on thesis rather than intrinsic text. yes, you synthesise your texts to develop your thesis in a HSC essay, however you should approach it in the manner gh3y specifies. the marker is interested in how you are able to deconstruct the texts studied to show meaning - not how you develop an argument and then use short quote references in support.