Part of both Paper 1 and Paper 2 is showing your ability to evaluate a text. This sounds simple, but you'd be amazed how many students actually get this wrong to some degree! This is a 15-mark question on both papers and understanding how to respond to it will put you in good stead for tackling the rest of the paper. What does it mean to 'evaluate'? Basically, evaluation is asking you 'how well' something is done. For example, if I asked you to evaluate my teaching, I'd be asking you to tell me how well I teach; if I asked you to evaluate school lunches, you'd tell me how well they are made, and how well they are received. Texts are no different. Cardinal error #1: Misunderstanding the question Remember, you are being asked how well, not how. Which means that if you are asked to look at how well a writer creates tension, you need to evaluate how well he creates tension - not describe how it is done! A great many students have lost out on marks thanks to this small error of judgement. See the writer as an architect One of the key things you need to remember when writing an evaluation is that the writing is a creation made by the writer. You need to keep the writer in the forefront of your mind - why have they made particular choices? What is the thought behind it? How successful have they been? Take the task: In this text, the writer tries to engage the reader through their description of the jungle. Evaluate how successfully this has been achieved. If we re-write the question (which we should always, always do!) with the writer at the centre of it, we end up with: How well does the writer's description of the jungle engage the reader? Now we're cooking on gas. It means that now, when we evaluate, we know that we're not looking at how he describes the jungle, but how well he describes it in order to make it interesting. Annotating the text As always, annotation is key. It means that you don't need to plan and you won't be pushed for time when you're writing as all of your notes will already be there. I made a post last week about the comparison question and I showed you Ria's annotations - this is what annotations should look like: Make sure your annotations relate directly to the question, and nothing more. You don't want a whole heap of annotations that you can't use - that would be confusing. Answering the question First, let's look at the mark scheme: As you can see, you're being asked to write critically - I wrote a post of critical evaluation and highly recommend that you read it - you can find it here. However, you're also being asked to analyse and evaluate the writer's choices. So how do we do this? Refer back to the question, using the writer as a focus When you're writing about the writer, you must use evaluative language and you must refer back to the question. That means using words like: These evaluative words should help you to make the differentiation between 'commenting', 'explaining' and 'evaluating'. Consider: James wears a red hat, which symbolises his anger. James' red hat is a symbol of his anger as the colour connotes rage; the fact he wears it on his head could indicate that his anger is inside his head. The writer gives James a red hat to send a clear signal to the audience that he is feeling, in his mind, angry. It is a powerful indicator of his mood; these symbols are also used elsewhere - for example, when he is calm, he wears a blue hat. In the final response, the candidate has clearly evaluated the usefulness of James' red hat - they have said 'how well', not just 'how'. A good idea would be to use your topic sentences to establish evaluation - The writer successfully creates... The writer clearly displays... The writer creates an obvious... This then gives you free reign to begin your analysis in the knowledge that you've already clearly displayed your understanding of the writer as an architect. So, all in all, you must remember - TL;DR:
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
In a Nutshell...This paper is a run-up to Paper 2. If you can master this, you're golden. ArchivesCategories
All
|