Tag Archives: ireland

Comparative 30/40 split

I’ve just received this email:

Hi,
First of all I’d like to say that this site is a great resource and is of great benefit this close to exams.
However I have a question regarding the comparative section that I can’t find the answer to on the site.
In 2011 one comparative question was as follows:
2. “The study of a theme or issue can offer a reader valuable lessons and insights.”
(a) Identify and discuss at least one valuable lesson or insight that you gained through the study of a theme or issue in one text on your comparative course. (30)

(b) Compare at least one valuable lesson or insight that you gained, from studying the same theme or issue (as discussed in (a) above), in two other texts on your comparative course.
The valuable lesson or insight may be the same, or different, to the one discussed in (a) above.

Does this mean that for part (a) you discuss solely one text, for example Dancing at Lughnasa, without making a comparison to the other two texts, or mentioning them at all?
And in part (b) do you discuss only the other two texts (Inside I’m Dancing and How Many Miles to Babylon) without referencing Dancing at Lughnasa at all?

Thank you for reading and I hope you can help. This issue is not one we have discussed in class and I’m not sure of what to do.

Sincerely,
M

 

Dear M,

This sounds more complicated than it is but in an exam the uncertainty it creates could be very off-putting. In my opinion the comparative is already complex enough and this kind of long-winded unwieldy question can throw students – so New Examinations Manager in English (they appointed someone new this year), if you’re out there and listening, you need to work on your “clarity of purpose” and “coherence of delivery” in setting these questions next year!!! Sometimes less is more!

Anyway, to answer your question, YES you just discuss ONE TEXT in part (a). You look at ONE theme and at least ONE valuable lesson or insight. You don’t mention the other two texts at all. I’ve checked this in the marking scheme to be doubly sure.

For part (b) you discuss TWO OTHER TEXTS. You must discuss the SAME THEME. Again, you must discuss at least ONE valuable lesson or insight – doesn’t matter if it’s the same insight as part (a) or a different one.

Finally, you wondered if you need to refer back to TEXT 1 (in your case Dancing At Lughnasa). This is entirely up to you. The marking scheme says that you are free to completely ignore TEXT 1. So if you want to focus on TEXT 2 and TEXT 3 ONLY in part (b) you can choose to do so and won’t be penalized.

However, if you choose to refer back to the points you made in part (a) that’s fine too. You might feel this adds to the overall coherence of your answer. If it does then do it. But if you feel it just confuses you and makes your answer stray all over the place then don’t do it.

BE VERY CAREFUL OF THE WORDING OF THE QUESTION.

Sometimes for the 30/40 mark split answer, part (b) includes the phrase “in the light of your discussion in part (a) above”. In this case you may refer back briefly to some of the points you made in part (a) but if you didn’t you wouldn’t lose any marks. As long as you discuss the same theme you’re fine. In 2004 the Literary Genre question contained this phrase but the marking scheme said students were free to choose the same aspect of storytelling OR a different one. So reading the question carefully and underlining the specific directions is important.

To summarise, when the question is split into 30marks/40marks:

  • You discuss one text on its own.
  • Then you discuss the other two texts.
  • As to whether or not you link parts (a) and (b), all of the marking schemes basically say you can if you want to but you don’t have to.

Read the specific question to decide whether you need to discuss the same theme/ same aspect of literary genre / same aspect of cultural context. In general the rule seems to be that you must stick with one theme for (a) and (b) but you can choose any aspect of storytelling or cultural context and it doesn’t have to be the same one in (a) and (b).

Hope this helps clarify this issue!

Regards,

Evelyn

 

 

Junior Cert revision

Here are some useful links if your texts include “To Kill A Mockingbird” and “Romeo & Juliet”.

Thanks to Elaine Dobbyn @Drogheda Grammar School – I saw the link on her blog!

http://litcharts.com/files/pdf/printer/tokillamockingbird-LitChart.pdf

http://litcharts.com/files/pdf/printer/romeoandjuliet-LitChart.pdf

Media for J.C.

We recently had a discussion in class of the advantages and disadvantages of various different media: Newspapers – Radio – Television – Internet. We decided we needed to compare & contrast – to think about what they have in common and about what makes them unique. Here are some of the ideas we came up with – the list is in no way exhaustive and of course is open to dispute!!!

ALL of these media:

  • convey information
  • deal with significant news stories
  • try to engage their target audience
  •  include advertisements
  • entertain / shock / provoke / discuss / challenge
  • may have a hidden bias – may favour a political viewpoint or a religious or cultural set of beliefs so we have to ask ourselves if the writer/broadcaster/presenter has an agenda (something they want to convince us of or achieve).

Differences between them – some ideas:

Newspapers:

  • Is the target audience generally a more traditional, older audience? Lots of people now prefer to get their news online.
  • The news they report on will be at least twelve hours old. This makes them less ‘cutting edge’, less up-to-date BUT the advantage is they have checked their sources, done more research and taken time to carefully consider their response.
  • Are newspapers more likely to get to the real truth? to offer a more balanced view of events AND to be reliable as a source of information? For a lot of people, this is why newspapers are still relevant and important.
  • Interestingly, almost all newspapers are now available online which allows them to combine quality journalism with the public demand for easily accessible news. They can also keep their content more up to date and deal with breaking news online – but not all traditional newspapers do this.

RADIO:

Advantages:

  • breaking news delivered.
  • Listen on the go – multi-task
  • Add your comments/opinions via text, email or by ringing in (interactive)
  • Competitions
  • Add sound bytes (snippets from interviews)
  • Prank calls (Is this a benefit or something to discourage?)
  • Local radio keeps you up to date on a daily basis (death and funeral notices) whereas local newspapers are printed weekly
  • Podcasts available if you miss a programme

Disadvantages:

  • News bulletins don’t have as much information.
  • Have to wait to hear upcoming items (this is a clever way to keep us listening!)
  • May have reception problems (but if you have a good internet connection or an internet radio you can now stream radio stations live from all over the world)
  • Depends who the DJ is what view of events you are given (do they have a particular viewpoint or agenda?).
  • DJ may not be able to say what they really think (eg. Ray D’arcy recently got in trouble for cursing the Catholic Church on his morning show)

TV:

Advantages:

  • Powerful – visual medium (a picture is worth a thousand words)
  • Breaking news & variety of news channels/programmes – “kids” news on RTE 2, news at 5.30 (TV3), 6 (RTE 1), 9 and 11, rolling news
  • Programmes for every taste/age/hobby – comedy, drama, music, (true) crime, movies, kids, sport, documentaries, religion, current affairs…
  • Advertising is more effective on TV (???)
  • Educational – documentaries, nature programmes etc…
  • Influences our behaviour – positive role models and values.

Disadvantages:

  • Influences our behaviour negatively – violence, attitudes towards drugs, sex, violence, crime etc…
  • Obesity – most TV is passive and involves sitting on the couch.
  • Encourages you not to think for yourself.
  • Can negatively effect your attention span.

Internet

Advantages:

  • Interactive – can post comments, ask questions.
  • Informative – all of human knowledge is available to all people.
  • Up-to-date and instant (available anywhere, anytime if you have a reliable connection.).
  • Cheap way of keeping in contact (skype) with loved ones abroad.
  • Can improve literacy and creativity.
  • Online shopping convenient, cheaper.
  • Access to people, cultures and events worldwide.

Disadvantages:

  • Addictive – possibility of spending too much time online.
  • Anti-social – despite the presence of ‘social media’, these sites can make us less likely to go out and socialise in the real world and lack of practice can make us more awkward when we do.
  • Can be dangerous (strangers, trolls, stalkers)
  • Sources might not be reliable.
  • Anonymous
  • Connection poor in rural areas.

 

Delay or procrastination?

Perhaps the single most debated question about Hamlet is “why does it take him so long to avenge his father’s murder?” For some, his delay is baffling and despite feeling sympathy for Hamlet as he struggles with his suicidal despair, they nonetheless view him ultimately as a procrastinator. According to this interpretation, Hamlet knows what he must do put puts it off – for a variety of complex reasons.

Perhaps the best way for you to fully grasp the concept of procrastination is to watch this youtube video by charlieissocoollike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjIsdbBsE8g

There is a whole other school of thought out there however (and this is the camp I fall into).

  • Some people believe that it is not at all clear to Hamlet what he must do because he cannot trust the ghost’s word.
  • Once it becomes absolutely clear to him that Claudius is without doubt guilty, Hamlet only delays further with very good reason: to establish the extent of his mother’s guilt and to save her soul.
  • From this point on, circumstances (primarily his accidental murder of Polonius) lead to a further delay which cannot and should not be construed as ‘procrastination’ (deliberately putting off something unpleasant). 
  • Despite his exile he does everything in his power to return to Denmark so that he can do his duty and avenge his father’s death. Upon his return he proclaims “from this time forth my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth“.
  • The one scene which appears unquestionably like procrastination (imho) is the gravedigger’s scene where his morbid fixation on death resurfaces and he appears to have absolutely no sense of urgency about killing Claudius.  
  • However, once he learns of Ophelia’s death he becomes almost serene in the knowledge that avenging his father’s murder is his inevitable destiny “If it be now, tis not to come, if it be not to come, it will be now….the readiness is all“. His moral qualms have transformed into a sure and certain belief that he will be doing God’s work if he kills the usurper Claudius “is’t not perfect conscience to quit him with this arm? And is’t not to be damned to let this canker of our nature come in further evil?”  

Despite Hamlet’s own confusion “I do not know why yet I live to say this thing’s to do“, we can conclude that six highly complex interwoven factors lead Hamlet to delay. They are:

1. Hamlet’s personality – he is a deep thinker, a sensitive individual not a man of action. For proof, look to his soliloquies. His aversion to the task he must perform (to kill another human being) is almost immediately evident when he laments “The time is out of joint, o cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right“.

2. His religious beliefs – our first impressions of him are that he’s a very moral individual. He denounces his mother’s sinful actions (“o most wicked speed to post with such dexterity to incestuous sheets“) yet despite being suicidal, he does not kill himself because he fears divine retribution (that he’ll burn in hell forever). These same beliefs make him question the reliability of the ghost (“the spirit that I have seen may be the devil and perhaps, abuses me to damn me“).

3. Claudius’ power as God’s representative on earth and Hamlet’s position as heir to the throne – Hamlet cannot and will not openly challenge Claudius (“It is not nor it cannot come to good but break my heart for I must hold my tongue“) until he is certain that Claudius is guilty (“I’ll have grounds more relative than this. The play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King“). Hamlet is a cautious and sensible individual – he knows that if he kills Claudius and it turns out that Claudius was innocent, Hamlet will have committed a crime against God and against Denmark (regicide); he will have thrown his kingdom into turmoil unnecessarily; and he will have deprived his mother of the man she loves (see below).

4. His love for his mother (despite what he sees as her betrayal) – after the Mousetrap, Hamlet is certain of Claudius’ guilt (“I’ll take the ghost’s word for a thousand pound“) but rather than immediately seek him out to kill him, he decides to confront his mother first. I think he wants to find out the extent of her guilt, and he wants to give her a chance to “confess [herself] to heaven, repent what’s past, avoid what is to come“. This desire to save her soul is surely an admirable reason to further delay his revenge!

5. His determination to obtain justice (rather than simply get revenge) for his father. This is evident in the Prayer Scene. Remember, Hamlet comes upon Claudius by accident rather than design while on the way to his mother’s chamber. This is the best opportunity he is ever likely to have to kill Claudius (who is completely unarmed and unprotected). However, he wants to ensure that Claudius is properly punished, that his “soul may be as damned and black as hell whereto he goes“.  If he kills him while Claudius is praying this would be “hire and salary not revenge” because Claudius would lose his life but gain an eternity in heaven (or so Hamlet believes!).

6. Circumstances (including his accidental murder of Polonius, his exile and Ophelia’s death). After deciding not to kill Claudius in the prayer scene, we the audience think Hamlet will probably take the next possible opportunity to kill Claudius -as long as Claudius is not in a state of grace (i.e. is doing something moraly wrong). And he does! Unfortunately his impulsive rage leads him to accidentally kill the wrong man. We know without doubt that he thought he was killing Claudius when he says “thou wretched rash intruding fool, I took thee for thy better“. As a consequence of this deed, Hamlet is now seen (understandably) as a very real threat to Claudius and is exiled to England. We suspect he will find it very difficult to find himself in a room alone with Claudius again because the King will ensure from now on that he is guarded and protected from harm.

The other obvious reason is that without the delay there is no play!!! So it’s a plot device as much as anything else.

When approaching this issue, don’t get bogged down in the difference between ‘procrastination’ and ‘justifiable delay’. No matter which way you swing it, Hamlet does not avenge his father’s murder until the final scene of the play and it is his delay, combined with Claudius’ evil machinations, and Hamlet’s impulsive rage, which leads to the unnecessary deaths of Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Leartes, Gertrude and of course Hamlet himself.

Perhaps the most valuable thing to do is to establish clearly why he delays at each stage and then to examine how this effects your feelings towards him. The ebb and flow of sympathy and frustration we feel towards him as a central character is largely created in our recognition of what it is he must do and our understanding of why he doesn’t do it. This conflict – this paradox – is what makes the play and the character so complex and so intriguing. This situation and his personality create the fascination this man of inaction has exerted for generations over successive audiences spanning 400 years.

Comprehension Answers

Here are some common mistakes I come across when correcting comprehension answers. These are specific to questions which ask you to discuss elements of the writer’s style.

1. Beginning with a blandly factual and obvious statement (often simply parroting back the question).

Here’s an example: “In this text there are many features of both argumentative and persuasive writing“. Yes, I know that, I read the question. Slightly better – but only slightly is “We see many examples of both argumentative and persuasive techniques in this passage” (at least this person slightly re-phrased the question, using “techniques” instead of “writing features“, “passage” instead of “text” and admitting that they as a reader exist – “we see“).

How do you FIX IT ?

Offer instead an evaluative and appreciative statement praising the writer’s style (or criticizing it if you don’t like it).

For example: “This text displays an impressive array of both argumentative and persuasive techniques that appeal to and influence the reader’s opinion“.  Or look at this example: “In this text I was impressed by both authors ability to persuade the audience to support their cause“. Central to both examples is the idea that you make a judgment (you are impressed or you are aren’t). Both also describe the effect on the reader.

2. Identifying the technique, giving an example, then failing to explain what makes it effective.

For example: “The writer gives us information regarding the number of visitors who visited the zoo last year “More than 900,000 people visited Dublin zoo…50,000 of them were schoolchildren” which she uses to fight her case about why zoos should be left open to the public. I find this piece of information good as it provides you with more knowledge

How do you FIX IT ?

Be more specific in identifying the technique; avoid repeating the same words over and over (visitors/visited/visited); explain why this technique is effective – how does it effect the reader? how does it strengthen the writer’s argument? Be specific.

Here’s an improved version of the example above:

The writer presents us with concrete statistics “more than 900,000 people visited Dublin zoo…50,000 of them were schoolchildren” to fight her case as to why zoos should be left open to the public. Her emphasis on numbers convinces us that zoos remain popular with the public and her focus on ‘schoolchildren’ makes us feel guilty at the thought of closing them down, as we would be depriving this group of something they obviously value”. 

3. Discussing what makes a technique IN GENERAL effective, but not identifying what makes THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of the technique effective.

In other words, you know why a writer might use a list so you write this down and then pick an example from the text. The problem with this is that you are being asked to demonstrate comprehension skills – do you understand why this writer used this technique in this piece of writing. Do you understand the effect in this specific example?

For example: “The writer also uses a list. She bombards us with information and we feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of points being made, thus we find it difficult to disagree with her as she describes zoos as “A living classroom, conservation centre, animal sanctuary, centre of excellence in animal husbandry, science and research and a major visitor attraction”. Lists can exploit our emotions and sway our opinions if constructed in a manipulative manner.  

How do you FIX IT ? Your job is to take your general awareness of the effectiveness of lists and apply it to a specific example. Here’s how it’s done:

“The writer offers a list of vital functions that zoos fulfill describing them as “A living classroom, conservation centre, animal sanctuary, centre of excellence in animal husbandry, science and research and a major visitor attraction”. She bombards us with reasons to support zoos and effectively counters the impression many of us have that their only purpose is to entertain the public. In fact I think she leaves this facet until last on her list (“visitor attraction”) to force us to really consider the other benefits of zoos. She also manipulates us – we experience positive emotions towards zoos because of her use of buzz words (such as “living” “sanctuary” “excellence” and “science and research”) in this list”.

4. Flow from one point to the next.

Do not rely exclusively on the word ALSO. This drives me nuts. There are hundreds of linking phrases out there (if you don’t believe me follow this link) so stop over-using the word also. The word “then” tends to be used too often aswell. It’s fine to use either of these words once, just don’t use them repeatedly. Use paragraphs (even mini paragraphs are much better than no paragraphs at all).

Even if we take the “correct” examples from above, without any link or flow between them, the answer loses some of it’s power. Here it is with no ‘flow’ (except the linking words used within the second paragraph – ‘also’ and ‘in fact’).

This text displays an impressive array of both argumentative and persuasive techniques that appeal to and influence the reader’s opinion. The writer presents us with concrete statistics “more than 900,000 people visited Dublin zoo…50,000 of them were schoolchildren” to fight her case as to why zoos should be left open to the public. Her emphasis on numbers convinces us that zoos remain popular with the public and her focus on ‘schoolchildren’ makes us feel guilty at the thought of closing them down, as we would be depriving this group of something they obviously value.  The writer offers a list of vital functions that zoos fulfill describing them as “A living classroom, conservation centre, animal sanctuary, centre of excellence in animal husbandry, science and research and a major visitor attraction”. She bombards us with reasons to support zoos and effectively counters the impression many of us have that their only purpose is to entertain the public. In fact I think she leaves this facet until last on her list (“visitor attraction”) to force us to really consider the other benefits of zoos. She also manipulates us – we experience positive emotions towards zoos because of her use of buzz words (such as “living” “sanctuary” “excellence” and “science and research”) in this list.

How do I FIX IT ? Consider how much better it is when you add some flow – and how simple it is to do:

This text displays an impressive array of both argumentative and persuasive techniques that appeal to and influence the reader’s opinion. 

Early on, the writer presents us with concrete statistics “more than 900,000 people visited Dublin zoo…50,000 of them were schoolchildren” to fight her case as to why zoos should be left open to the public. Her emphasis on numbers convinces us that zoos remain popular with the public and her focus on ‘schoolchildren’ makes us feel guilty at the thought of closing them down, as we would be depriving this group of something they obviously value.  

To strengthen her viewpoint the writer then offers a list of vital functions that zoos fulfill describing them as “A living classroom, conservation centre, animal sanctuary, centre of excellence in animal husbandry, science and research and a major visitor attraction”. She bombards us with reasons to support zoos and effectively counters the impression many of us have that their only purpose is to entertain the public. In fact I think she leaves this facet until last on her list (“visitor attraction”) to force us to really consider the other benefits of zoos. She also manipulates us – we experience positive emotions towards zoos because of her use of buzz words (such as “living” “sanctuary” “excellence” and “science and research”) in this list.

5. Vary your phrasing.

Using the same words or phrases repeatedly suggests to the reader that you don’t have a very sophisticated vocabulary. It is important to keep linking back what you’ve said to the question asked, but use synonyms instead of parroting the exact wording of the question over and over. Don’t begin every point in the same way. It’s annoying and it’s a waste of time and words.

For example: “The writer uses effective persuasive and argumentative writing when she uses a list”… “The writer also uses effective persuasive and argumentative writing when she uses a rhetorical question”…”The final use of persuasive and argumentative writing I found effective was her ability to refute counter arguments…” 

How do I FIX IT ?

Use synonyms. Don’t allow yourself to become a parrot.

“The writer uses lists effectively….” “I particularly liked the way she used a rhetorical question to grab my attention… “Finally, her ability to refute counter arguments was for me the most powerful feature of her argumentative style…” 

6. Work your quotes naturally into the grammar of your sentence.

Don’t just plonk a quote onto the page as an add on.  The difference between integrating quotes – and not – is small but significant. There is a certain overlap here with point 4 above – your answer must flow…

For example: “The writer uses emotive language. “Modern zoos are managed by caring professionals who devote their lives to the welfare of animals”. This is an establishment which views their animals as a top priority”.

How do I FIX IT ?

The writer uses emotive language when she describes “modern zoos” as places which are “managed by caring professionals who devote their lives to the welfare of animals”. Here she chooses the words “caring” and “devoted” to imply that the workers are passionate and dedicated, viewing the animals as their top priority”.

 For more on using quotes correctly, click here: http://www.utoronto.ca/ucwriting/quotations.html