Aims
According to AQA students on this course should:
- Read widely and independently from both set texts and texts they have selected for themselves
- Engage critically and creatively with a substantial body of texts and ways of responding to them
- Develop and effectively apply their knowledge of literary analysis and evaluation
- Explore the contexts of the texts they are reading and other's interpretations of them
So, what does that mean? Wider reading is important and memorising quotes is the best way to show you've done that but that's not all they're after. You need to be able to analyse your quotes and develop your ideas into a coherent essay (which is why taking the time to do practice essays is so important). You need to be able to look at a text and immediately come up with some ideas on what to write about it. You also need to know some context and critical responses which is just another memory test. Contexts can be as easy as "Vera Brittain writes from a female perspective"; it just depends how much you think you can remember. Finding critic's quotes and memorising them is only necessary if you want a really high grade, but it's something everyone should put into their coursework. For ideas on how to meet these targets see: Revision Tips & Tricks
Assessment Objectives
Every essay you write will be marked on whether or not it meets the AO's. The AO's you're marked on are:
- AO1: Articulate informed, personal and creative responses to literary texts, using associated concepts and terminology, and coherent, accurate written expression.
- AO2: Analyse ways in which meanings are shaped in literary texts.
- AO3: Demonstrate understanding of the significance and influence of the contexts in which literary texts are written and received.
- AO4: Explore connections across literary texts.
- AO5: Explore literary texts informed by different interpretations.
So what does that mean?
AO1 is your ability to write a good essay. You need to be clear, you need to spell and punctuate properly, you need to use interesting language. AO1 is the most subjective and one of the hardest to work at. It comes very naturally to some people and is much harder for others. If you struggle with AO1 read example essays that have scored highly for it and try and mimic the techniques they used.
AO2 is your analysis. You will assess the language, form, and structure, of your texts and how they convey the author's meaning.
AO3 is knowing the context of when a text was written and how that would effect it, as well as how that would effect an audience response.
AO4 is your ability to compare and contrast different texts.
AO5 is your knowledge ability to see both sides of an argument. You need to be able to come up with different interpretations for a text, and be able to find the strengths and weaknesses of all sides.
Weightings
Assesment Objective
|
Overall Weighting (approximate %)
|
AO1
|
28
|
AO2
|
24
|
AO3
|
24
|
AO4
|
12
|
AO5
|
12
|
AQA Coursework Examiners Advice:
AO1 is always strongest when students think carefully about their ideas and form a workable hypothesis before beginning to write. Listy, disconnected, shapeless essays were seen to result when students did not seem to know what their main argument was and therefore wrote in an unstructured and descriptive manner to little purpose. As has been stated in previous reports, poor written expression must be reflected in the final mark awarded. A very few teachers fail to consider the impact of clumsy, obvious and persistent AO1 flaws, omitting the issue in their marginal annotations and glossing over it in their summative comments. Moreover, as one very experienced senior moderator noted last year, ‘if students choose to structure their essays as three discrete analyses very loosely linked together rather than constructing an argument that moves fluently between texts, they are not shaping a sophisticated comparative argument, even when the work on the individual texts is very good’.
Often the opening paragraph makes or breaks an essay. Occasionally students tended to launch straight into close analysis of isolated words and phrases from their Shakespeare text without any kind of preamble linking the three texts and keep this up for three or four sides before a vague ‘alternatively..’, ‘however..’ or ‘in contrast..’ provided supposed ‘links’ to the second and third texts which were treated in a similarly linear and separate fashion. These poorly structured essays tended to conclude with a generally bland and broad assertion which claimed that the three chosen texts had been compared, when in fact there had been a glaring lack of sustained comparison throughout. Those students who submitted what were effectively three virtually disparate miniessays were unable to be given much credit with regard to either AO1 or the first part of AO3.
Some schools and colleges still need to stress to their students the importance of shaping an introduction which addresses the chosen thesis, contextualises the texts and promises to address genre differences. A good introduction will define the parameters of the essay, clarify the terms of the debate and shape the forthcoming argument. Starting to compare the chosen texts only in the conclusion is fatal; students who present a first draft such as this should be instructed to turn their essay around and begin with the argument contained within their final paragraph in order to prevent aimless narrative drift. In general, however, many students blended a balanced overview with detailed close reading to produce a genuinely exploratory and original exploration of all three texts. As one senior moderator noted, ‘the conclusion needs to do more than say “There, I told you so”; the very best essays arrive at a conclusion which not only clinches the argument but illuminates all that has been said before’.
Furthermore, students need to analyse all three areas of the AO2 triplet – i.e. form and structure as well as language. One moderator has previously noted that ‘more than one student spent a whole paragraph analysing a single word or some arcane punctuation from a lengthy novel rather than looking at much more relevant, challenging and interesting aspects of narrative form and structure’. Students must write about the ways in which different genres present similar themes or subjects, and how narratives can be organised. Some students were too highly rewarded for a form of critical appreciation which involved minutely examining a word or phrase so as to prevent them seeing the wood for the trees. As one senior moderator commented, ‘this laboured dissection of language often comes at a steep price: the loss of overview, the lack of meaningful context, time wasted on tiny lexical details where acres of form and structure are ignored’. The best essays move smoothly between relevant close analysis of language and a confident overview of form and structure. Whether writing about texts across one, two or all three genres, students must discuss specific features of poetry, prose and drama in depth and detail to access the highest mark band.
Context (AO4) is lightly weighted in this unit (7 marks out of 70) and yet proved tricky for a small number of students; incorporating laboured historical context which crowds out literary appreciation can never be in a student’s best interests. In the main, however, most students now choose their contexts carefully and reveal a sound awareness of the ways in which the contexts of production, reception, culture, society, history, biography, intertextuality and genre can affect texts. Moreover, rather than bolting on some additional contextual material, when students strand A04 with AO3 to consider how different readers might respond to a given text in the light of the contexts of production and reception, they often do very well.
Marking Criteria
AO1 is always strongest when students think carefully about their ideas and form a workable hypothesis before beginning to write. Listy, disconnected, shapeless essays were seen to result when students did not seem to know what their main argument was and therefore wrote in an unstructured and descriptive manner to little purpose. As has been stated in previous reports, poor written expression must be reflected in the final mark awarded. A very few teachers fail to consider the impact of clumsy, obvious and persistent AO1 flaws, omitting the issue in their marginal annotations and glossing over it in their summative comments. Moreover, as one very experienced senior moderator noted last year, ‘if students choose to structure their essays as three discrete analyses very loosely linked together rather than constructing an argument that moves fluently between texts, they are not shaping a sophisticated comparative argument, even when the work on the individual texts is very good’.
Often the opening paragraph makes or breaks an essay. Occasionally students tended to launch straight into close analysis of isolated words and phrases from their Shakespeare text without any kind of preamble linking the three texts and keep this up for three or four sides before a vague ‘alternatively..’, ‘however..’ or ‘in contrast..’ provided supposed ‘links’ to the second and third texts which were treated in a similarly linear and separate fashion. These poorly structured essays tended to conclude with a generally bland and broad assertion which claimed that the three chosen texts had been compared, when in fact there had been a glaring lack of sustained comparison throughout. Those students who submitted what were effectively three virtually disparate miniessays were unable to be given much credit with regard to either AO1 or the first part of AO3.
Some schools and colleges still need to stress to their students the importance of shaping an introduction which addresses the chosen thesis, contextualises the texts and promises to address genre differences. A good introduction will define the parameters of the essay, clarify the terms of the debate and shape the forthcoming argument. Starting to compare the chosen texts only in the conclusion is fatal; students who present a first draft such as this should be instructed to turn their essay around and begin with the argument contained within their final paragraph in order to prevent aimless narrative drift. In general, however, many students blended a balanced overview with detailed close reading to produce a genuinely exploratory and original exploration of all three texts. As one senior moderator noted, ‘the conclusion needs to do more than say “There, I told you so”; the very best essays arrive at a conclusion which not only clinches the argument but illuminates all that has been said before’.
Furthermore, students need to analyse all three areas of the AO2 triplet – i.e. form and structure as well as language. One moderator has previously noted that ‘more than one student spent a whole paragraph analysing a single word or some arcane punctuation from a lengthy novel rather than looking at much more relevant, challenging and interesting aspects of narrative form and structure’. Students must write about the ways in which different genres present similar themes or subjects, and how narratives can be organised. Some students were too highly rewarded for a form of critical appreciation which involved minutely examining a word or phrase so as to prevent them seeing the wood for the trees. As one senior moderator commented, ‘this laboured dissection of language often comes at a steep price: the loss of overview, the lack of meaningful context, time wasted on tiny lexical details where acres of form and structure are ignored’. The best essays move smoothly between relevant close analysis of language and a confident overview of form and structure. Whether writing about texts across one, two or all three genres, students must discuss specific features of poetry, prose and drama in depth and detail to access the highest mark band.
Context (AO4) is lightly weighted in this unit (7 marks out of 70) and yet proved tricky for a small number of students; incorporating laboured historical context which crowds out literary appreciation can never be in a student’s best interests. In the main, however, most students now choose their contexts carefully and reveal a sound awareness of the ways in which the contexts of production, reception, culture, society, history, biography, intertextuality and genre can affect texts. Moreover, rather than bolting on some additional contextual material, when students strand A04 with AO3 to consider how different readers might respond to a given text in the light of the contexts of production and reception, they often do very well.
Marking Criteria
Band/Mark
|
Typical Features
|
How to arrive at this mark
|
Band 5
Perceptive/assured
21–25 marks
‘Perception’ is demonstrated when students are showing the depth of their understanding and responding sensitively to the texts and task. ‘Assuredness’ is shown when students write with confidence and conviction. | AO1: assured use of literary critical concepts and terminology; mature and impressive expression AO2: perceptive understanding of authorial methods in relation to the task AO2: assured engagement with how meanings are shaped by the methods used AO3: perceptive understanding of the significance of relevant contexts in relation to the task AO3: assuredness in the connection between those contexts and the comparative texts studied AO4: perceptive exploration of connections across literary texts arising out of comparative study AO5: perceptive and confident engagement with interpretations, including over time |
This band is characterised by perceptive and assured work which shows confidence, sharpness of mind and sophistication in relation to the task.
At the top of the band students are consistently assured and will demonstrate sensitivity and perception across all five assessment objectives in the course of their response.
At the bottom of the band there will be coherence and accuracy with some perception but with less consistency and evenness.
|
Band 4
Coherent/ thorough
16–20 marks
‘Coherence’ is shown when students are logical and consistent in their arguments in relation to the task.They hold their ideas together in an intelligible way. ‘Thoroughness’ is shown when students write carefully, precisely and accurately. | AO1: appropriate use of literary critical concepts and terminology; precise and accurate expression AO2: thorough understanding of authorial methods in relation to the task AO2: thorough engagement with how meanings are shaped by the methods used AO3: thorough understanding of the significance of relevant contexts in relation to the task AO3: coherence in the connection between those contexts and the comparative texts studied AO4: logical and consistent exploration of connections across literary texts arising out of comparative study AO5: thorough engagement with interpretations, including over time |
This band is characterised by coherent and thorough work where ideas are linked together in a focused and purposeful way in relation to the task.
At the top of the band students will demonstrate a fully coherent and thorough argument across all five assessment objectives in the course of their response.
At the bottom of the band ideas will be discussed in a shaped, relevant and purposeful way with a clear sense of direction, with one or two lapses in coherence and accuracy.
|
Band 3
Straightforward/relevant 11–15 marks ‘Straightforward’ work is shown when students make their ideas in relation to the task clearly known. ‘Relevant’ work is shown when students are focused on the task and use detail in an appropriate and supportive way. | AO1: some use of literary critical concepts and terminology which are mainly appropriate; straightforward and clear expression AO2: straightforward understanding of authorial methods in relation to the task AO2: relevant engagement with how meanings are shaped by the methods used AO3: straightforward understanding of the significance of relevant contexts in relation to the task AO3: relevant connections between those contexts and the comparative texts studied AO4: explores connections across literary texts arising out of comparative study in a straightforward way AO5: straightforward engagement with interpretations, including over time |
This band is characterised by straightforward and relevant work where the student’s response to the task is clear and intelligible.
At the top of the band students will demonstrate consistent straightforward understanding in the course of their argument. Ideas will be developed relevantly.
At the bottom of the band there will be flashes of relevant understanding with evidence of straightforward thinking.
|
Band 2
Simple/generalised
6–10 marks
‘Simple’ work is shown when students write in an unelaborated and basic way in relation to the task. ‘Generalised’ work is shown when students write without regard to particular details.
| AO1: generalised use of literary critical concepts and terminology; simple expression AO2: simple understanding of authorial methods in relation to the task AO2: generalised engagement with how meanings are shaped by the methods used AO3: simple understanding of the significance of relevant contexts in relation to the task AO3: generalised connections between those contexts and the comparative texts studied AO4: simple exploration of connections across literary texts arising out of comparative study AO5: simple and generalised response to interpretations, including over time |
This band is characterised by simple and generalised work which is mainly linked to the task.
At the top of the band students will demonstrate a basic generalised understanding in the course of their answer. Ideas will be developed in a simple way.
At the bottom of the band there will be inconsistency, but the beginnings of a simple and generalised understanding.
|
Band 1:
Largely irrelevant/largely misunderstood/largely inaccurate
1–5 marks
‘Largely irrelevant’ work is shown when students write in an unclear way with only occasional reference to what is required by the question. ‘Largely misunderstood’ and ‘largely inaccurate’ work is shown when knowledge of the text is insecure, hazy and often wrong.
|
|
This band is characterised by work which is largely irrelevant and largely misunderstood and largely inaccurate, and so unlikely to be addressing many of the AOs.
At the top of the band students will mention some unconnected points in relation to the task during the course of their writing. The writing is likely to lack clarity.
At the bottom of the band there will be no connection with the task; the writing will
be hard to follow and irrelevant.
No marks for response when nothing is written or where response has no connection to the text(s) or task.
|
