Module B: Critical Study of Texts (1 Viewer)

[know_it_all]

what was the wuthering question?

 

[DjCarrad]

To answer the question, you had to specify your understanding of the text in relation to whatever it was on about. You didn't have to use any personal pronouns. You can show your personal interpretation through other means, it's about how you write in an evaluate manner, using evaluate words. So I'm guessing you'd still be fine, SS06
Unfortunately for you, Miss Shady, you've used a Marxist reading, which means you could have completely missed the point of the question, which was to get what you think applying a Miss Shady reading.

 

[DjCarrad]

Just to back up what I'm saying, here's the syllabus:

Module B: Critical Study of Texts
This module requires students to explore and evaluate a specific text and its
reception in a range of contexts. It develops students’ understanding of questions of textual integrity.
Each elective in this module requires close study of a single text to be chosen from
a list of prescribed texts. Students explore the ideas expressed in the text through analysing its construction, content and language. They examine how particular features of the text contribute to textual integrity. They research others’ perspectives of the text and test these against their own understanding and interpretations of the text. Students discuss and evaluate the ways in which the set work has been read, received and valued in historical and other contexts. They extrapolate from this study of a particular text to explore questions of textual integrity and significance.
Students develop a range of imaginative, interpretive and analytical compositions
that relate to the study of their specific text. These compositions may be realised in a variety of forms and media.

Nothing about readings in there.... "Other's perspectives" simply refers to critics and reviews. Not a Marxist or feminist reading.

Here's an extract from last year's notes from the marking centre:

For too many candidates critical readings about the text have been substituted for study of the text. In many scripts, the `readings' seem to be a barrier placed between the candidate and the text. Many responses suggested that candidates had prepared for the examination but not for the expectations of Module B. It was evident that candidates needed to be more aware of the requirements of this module as well as responding more thoroughly to the advice provided in previous `Notes from the Marking Centre'.

Basically, this all says: Don't use 'readings'. They aren't specified in the syllabus, and they're being warned against by the marking centre.

 

[raci]

Yeah, Cloudstreet was hammered. What did everyone write about?

 

[Gomezz]

DJCarrad..
Mate..When it says "reception in a range of contexts" its referring to "readings"...the whole term we studied shakespeare we focused on how its "reception in a range of contexts" interpreted our perspective... i think you are wrong

 

[ane_st]

I thought the King Lear question was ok.. It took a bit of time to read and understand... I just talked about how my readings influenced my own intepretation and how others had 'chracterised' King Lear....

And Gomezz you're right, why would we do readings in class if it wasnt in the exam??

 

[DjCarrad]

Then why is the marking centre warning against it?

Why has the President of the English Teachers Assosiation prepared a paper on the way to approach Module B study for teachers and students because it's answered poorly by so many candidates year after year?
Why does he say "The syllabus requirements do not make it necessary for students to engage with particular critical theories in order to generate possible 'readings' of the text as an end in itself."?

And ane_st.... I don't get your point, buddy. Critical readings weren't in the exam. You puzzle me, I certainly hope I didn't sit the wrong exam. Let me check the exam paper.... English Advance Modules.... 2006... Module B, Critical Study.... hmmm... not one mention of critical readings. How bizarre.

But y'know, perhaps I'll shut up so as not to burst the "I did the right thing" you'll try to comfort yourself with. Which is why y'all come here in the first place, innit?

 

[Gomezz]

DJCarrad ay..
Leave da lady alone mate...no need to be a smartass ayy....ane_st i feell ya..
All we sayen is that why would we learn bout all those readings in so much detail if it wasnt in the syllabus?..also "buddy" u seem a lil stuckup if thats the reason we're here den why u here too?...keep braggin bout ur lil teacher bro...at the end of the day when they talk bout critics they are referring to producers of those new interpretations..look at past responses that have got 20/20 they all concentrate and relate to those interpretations, if the marking guidlines said dat it was wrong..den tell me genius y that person got 20/20??... dnt run cryin to ur teacher for an answer either buddy

 

[tadros]

The Board of Studies is a load of bullshit thank you very much...

King Lear was extremly hard, had nothing to do with the readings i learnt, had nothing to do with themes etc
I thought the characterisation was about all the characters and then realised it was about Lear. There was no room for personal interpretation of the question so i was unable to disagree with it, which i did in my scenes.
I studied the opening scene where lear has no endurance or whatever
anyways im pissed off at King Lear and at creative writing, rest was fine

 

[alialiali]

Sorry to say, but DjCarrad i think you are very wrong. Its not possible to get full marks in module B unless you have a reading - thats what was so hard about that question, it was extremely hard to incorporate a reading. You need both a personal reading and a critical reading- weve had it drummed into us all yeah and our teacher has been an HSC marker for years!

 

[filosophy]

king lear -
haha
i screwd it completely

lol my head should have blown when it said "characterisation of King Lear," but fortunately i thought it was an easy question and i was rippin it full of confidence but UNFORTUNATELY i didnt answer the question.

to tell u the truth i was more

WTF is an extract?

 

[Jizz-L]

Im jus wondering will i be marked down for not doing a second reading of either of yeats poems....i only did when u are old and the wild swans at coole from a historicist perspective thats all i had time for plus a feminist reading of when u are old did not fit in with the question.

????

 

[ashgabee]

Gwen Harwood was an awesome question! I did At mornington and the violets cos they're about memory and age and youth etc. I applied elements of psychoanalytic theory

 

[kisschasysunday]

i like speeches. question was straight-forward, marking is straight forward. i wish they said to use three speeches though. i always prepared for three, using Socrates, Goldman and then McAleese as a contrast to the others. So I didn't know what to do in the exam, as I didn't have techniques for McAleese, just a thematic contrast. But I used her's and Socrates anyway. Hope I do okay, Speeches has always been the reason I do well in Advanced.
To those that did three anyway, I'm pretty sure you get marked down, but not as much as you would if you did less than what was specified.

 

[nate18]

i like speeches. question was straight-forward, marking is straight forward. i wish they said to use three speeches though. i always prepared for three, using Socrates, Goldman and then McAleese as a contrast to the others. So I didn't know what to do in the exam, as I didn't have techniques for McAleese, just a thematic contrast. But I used her's and Socrates anyway. Hope I do okay, Speeches has always been the reason I do well in Advanced.
To those that did three anyway, I'm pretty sure you get marked down, but not as much as you would if you did less than what was specified.

that was a dumb thing to say...u dont get marked down if u did three the just dont consider the third one as long as u answer the question and the rubrics you should get full marks

 

[jesuschrist]

Sorry to sound like a whinger
BUT
i REALLY feel that that critical study question favoured those who did any thing ohter than a big text (e.g. Wuthering Heights, In the skin of lion, cloudstreet, lear.)
For things like speeches, and multimedia etc it specified that you discuss a CONCEPT , or the artistic merit or whatever.
those who did big texts got a character.
i feel specifying two scenes was a bit harsh, espec on focusing on one character.

The quality of answer for this paper espec for the text i do (Ondaatje) has been getting REALY REALLY high, maybe they did this to drop the averages so as to get a better spread.

Or maybe they are just wankers, no where in the syllabus does it say that you have to beable to write an essay on any tom quick or harry they specify.

THE ENGLISH SYLLABUS IS FUCKED!
everyother subject at least tells you what to expect, english is just full of pop psychology, pseudophilosophy bullishit. The eng dept have their heads waaaaaay to far up their asses if u ask me.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

much better

 

[JuliaT]

In The Skin of A Lion question- totally not what i was expecting, characterisation of Patrick? sure, i knew all about Patrick, and i could talk about it vicariously through my analysis of scenes, but i seriously wasn't expecting that.

there wasn't even a direct mention to readings! that was pretty much the entire focus of my assignment and practice essays, with a bit of waffle about values portrayed and general themes.

And the assignment i did focused on one scene, and the question asked for close analysis of two scenes, so i sort of adlibbed and talked about one in detail, and two from memory, to hopefully be the equivalent of two close analysises. <_< >_>.

i love In The Skin Of A Lion, i can't believe how little of my awesome information i got to use. but i still think i did alright. it was my best module, in any case. i hate representation and text.

 

[up all nite]

i fuked up king lear.... oh god.... fail fail fail.....

 

[charliebarbeque]

King Lear was a horrible, evil question. My thesis was all about nature and it's various connotations and how this opearates in the play. I couldn't refute the statement about Lear, yet i couldn't agree with it either. I made a woeful attempt - it turned out a bumbling messs. Our question was unfair, i could have answered any of the previous question easily.

 

[anitasanchez]

For ONDAATJE (best novelist EVER!!)
ok i just wana say the whole underlying cubist reading of the text (see Berger references etc) implies that the novel seeks equality of character. so WTF focus on one character is pointless.

but i enjoyed the question.. it was awesome. and for all you suckers who learnt a set response- SUFFER!! hahaha you really should LEARN the work not memorise it!
a good attempt by BOS to divide the students.