Scribd
Upload
11 views1 page

LL P1 Example C Comm en

The examiner's comments on Paper 1 SL highlight that the candidate demonstrates a basic understanding of the text 'Slavery' but lacks depth in analyzing its implications and visual features. While the analysis of textual features is generally appropriate, the candidate's altered focus leads to a lack of clarity and coherence in their argument. Overall, the essay shows potential but is limited in its awareness of the text's purpose and subtleties.

Uploaded by

munjal.ginni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views1 page

LL P1 Example C Comm en

The examiner's comments on Paper 1 SL highlight that the candidate demonstrates a basic understanding of the text 'Slavery' but lacks depth in analyzing its implications and visual features. While the analysis of textual features is generally appropriate, the candidate's altered focus leads to a lack of clarity and coherence in their argument. Overall, the essay shows potential but is limited in its awareness of the text's purpose and subtleties.

Uploaded by

munjal.ginni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Paper 1 (SL) example C: examiner‘s comments coversheet

Paper 1 SL examiner’s comments coversheet

Subject name: English A: language and literature


Sample name: Example C

Text: Slavery
Criterion A Mark: 2/5
Examiner’s comments:
The response demonstrates understanding of the literal meaning of the text, but there are only hints as to
its implications. The candidate focuses on the text but to a large extent ignores visual features and
website design. They use frequent references that help to show their understanding and that sometimes
support the argument. The guiding question has been altered from “taking action” to “raising awareness”.
While it is perfectly acceptable to change the suggested point of entry, this particular adaptation does not
show a clear understanding of the text’s purpose.

Criterion B Mark: 3/5


Examiner’s comments:
There is a generally appropriate analysis of textual features and authorial choices—with the focus on
certain aspects of the text, not the layout of the website. Some of the authorial choices are clearly
connected to the suggested point of entry and are also evaluated effectively—this would call for a level 4
rather than 3, but the focus often remains unclear so the evaluation is not used efficiently.

Criterion C Mark: 3/5


Examiner’s comments:
The presentation of ideas is adequately organized in a generally coherent manner. Since the candidate
has changed the focus of the suggested point of entry to one that is not precisely the text’s purpose, the
candidate’s focus could not be sustained and only has “some focus”.

Criterion D Mark: 3/5


Examiner’s comments:
The candidate’s language is often clear and shows an adequate command. The language often has lapses
such as “large amount”, and prepositional use is sometimes incorrect. There are some lapses in register
such as “make it or break it” and the creator does an “excellent job”.

General commentary
A clear “middle of the road” essay that shows some potential. The candidate has acquired strategies to
analyse a website and shows confidence in applying some of these strategies. However, the candidate
shows only limited awareness both of the implications and subtleties of the presented text.
This is a good example of a candidate who presents a point of entry that differs from the suggested
guiding question. However, the candidate’s chosen focus is less supported in the text.

Language A: language and literature assessed student work 1

You might also like