{"id":726,"date":"2011-11-04T12:10:04","date_gmt":"2011-11-04T10:10:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.teachenglishtoday.org\/?p=726"},"modified":"2011-11-04T12:10:04","modified_gmt":"2011-11-04T10:10:04","slug":"stepping-off-the-treadmill-for-a-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/2011\/11\/stepping-off-the-treadmill-for-a-change\/","title":{"rendered":"Stepping off the Treadmill for a Change"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"pdfprnt-buttons pdfprnt-buttons-post pdfprnt-top-right\"><a href=\"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/2011\/11\/stepping-off-the-treadmill-for-a-change\/?print=pdf\" class=\"pdfprnt-button pdfprnt-button-pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><img src=\"https:\/\/www.teachenglishtoday.org\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-print\/images\/pdf.png\" alt=\"image_pdf\" title=\"View PDF\" \/><\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/2011\/11\/stepping-off-the-treadmill-for-a-change\/?print=print\" class=\"pdfprnt-button pdfprnt-button-print\" target=\"_blank\"><img src=\"https:\/\/www.teachenglishtoday.org\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-print\/images\/print.png\" alt=\"image_print\" title=\"Print Content\" \/><\/a><\/div><h1><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Stepping off the Treadmill for a Change<\/strong> &#8211;<\/span><\/h1>\n<h1><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>A focused diagnostic analysis of literature exam scripts<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>John Goodall<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><em><strong>Former teacher, currently an adviser in the DBE in PMB<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.teachenglishtoday.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/10\/treadmill.gif\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-786\" title=\"treadmill\" src=\"http:\/\/www.teachenglishtoday.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/10\/treadmill-150x150.gif\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"150\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.teachenglishtoday.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/10\/treadmill-150x150.gif 150w, https:\/\/www.teachenglishtoday.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/10\/treadmill-300x300.gif 300w, https:\/\/www.teachenglishtoday.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/10\/treadmill.gif 947w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px\" \/><\/a>Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>This article describes a method of analyzing Grade 12 English Home Language literature exam scripts with a view to pin-pointing a manageable number of academic skills that underperformers may need to master in order to perform at their level of competence.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>This analysis focuses only on literary essays written by KwaZulu-Natal Grade 12 candidates for the November 2008 English Home Language literature exam paper. It focuses purely on performance rather than on the question paper itself. This selective approach aims to produce not only a manageable teaching agenda, but one that serves as a check-list against which one can note results.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The analysis could be described as an example of action research because it is conducted during the course of one\u2019s normal schedule of duties. It displays what I believe to be the limitations of action research; namely, an absence of any literary review on the subject; limited resources; i.e., raw material available for analysis, and a breadth of analysis circumscribed by the amount of time available. In addition, results from this qualitative analysis of a small number of sample texts are not supported by evidence that is statistically significant.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, I believe teachers will find both the method of this study and its results a productive resource against which to compare academic skills that under-achievers in their classes may need to learn.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>The problem stated<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Traditionally analyses of data from exam scripts reflect performances of learners across the performance curve. This means that data will coincide with performance descriptors across all ranges of a marking rubric. As a result, examiners\u2019 reports tend to change very little year to year.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The following examples of examiners\u2019 reports illustrate this:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Candidates need to be reminded that paraphrasing or quoting sections of text does not constitute critical analysis unless it is supported by critical comment. (Comment from 2003 English Home Language performance \u2013 on the Higher Grade. Reference: KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education Circular 32 of 2004.)<\/li>\n<li>Most candidates had difficulty writing a critical response to poetry and paraphrased the poem instead. (Reporting on performance in the 2008 National Senior Certificate English Home Language (Paper 2 \u2013 literature) Exam. Reference: Minutes of KwaZulu-Natal English (home language) subject advisers\u2019 meeting of 22 January 2009.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Given the graph of performance in an exam, one would be surprise <em>not<\/em> to find such comments for any literature paper. One can conclude from this that a rubric serves as much as a marker\u2019s guide to placing performance in ranges, as it serves to <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">predict<\/span> the content of an examiner\u2019s report on any given literature exam.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>So why is there no improvement in candidates\u2019 performances? How do we tell if there <em>is<\/em> an improvement?<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>I contend in this article that, while the desire for improvement motivates writers of examiners\u2019 reports, these aim rather to comment on the curve of the performance graph \u2013 a broad description \u2013 rather than to plan improvement. Examiners\u2019 reports generally do not select particular areas where improvement can be expected from a particular range of candidates, from whom this improvement can be expected. Traditional examiners\u2019 reports desire improvement but cannot be said to plan it.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The analysis in this article focuses on two performance ranges and aims to make comments that will assist in teaching \u201cthe next thing\u201d that <em>some of the learners <\/em>in these ranges need to focus on in order to improve their performance. Where, for example, a teacher finds that top-performing learners tend to bunch within a range, say, for example, rating code six (symbol B), and that an unexpected low number achieve scores in the next range, this article may well assist such a teacher in identifying the feature that appears to prevent at least some of the candidates in this range from producing a rating code seven (symbols A or B) performance. This article pin-points academic skills, which if mastered, will probably enable these candidates to break through to the next level of achievement.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>The approach used<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Three stages summarise the way that the problem was dealt with:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Analyse responses to essay questions from candidates with rating code seven (symbols A &amp; B) scores, and with rating code five (symbol C) scores. (Focusing on the literary essay allowed a speedier global analysis of responses from a greater variety of works than an analysis requiring reference to marking memoranda for contextual questions.)<\/li>\n<li>Use the current rubric for marking essay questions for a novel and drama as the basis for comments on candidates\u2019 responses. (This rubric came as part of the Department of Education\u2019s (2009) <em>Guidelines for the Setting of Grade 12<\/em><em>Examinations in Languages<\/em>.)<\/li>\n<li>Determine a teaching and learning agenda for current matric candidates with ratings similar to those in the sample, and particularly for candidates who might be expected to push their performance to the next level of achievement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>It is noted that because of the limited time available to complete this study, and the number of scripts available, this analysis can at best be described as illustrative rather than comprehensive. However, the approach could serve as a template for teachers to conduct their own analysis.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Procedure<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Select essays from the whole range of prescribed works from candidates with rating code seven (symbols A &amp; B) scores, and with rating code five (symbol C) scores. (These rating levels are referred to as 7A, 7B, and 5C respectively, in the tables below.)<\/p>\n<p>2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Read each selected essay and write notes on each candidate\u2019s performance in from one to three lines. Use the rubrics as a prompt for these comments.<\/p>\n<p>3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Compare essay scores with each candidate\u2019s overall score for the literature exam paper.<\/p>\n<p>4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Once all essays have been analysed and comments made, use these to articulate common tendencies, especially tendencies that could point to the next step in the candidate\u2019s learning, and tendencies that are likely to result in an improved performance.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Results: Comments on Performance<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The November 2008 literature paper asked essay questions on Shakespeare\u2019s <em>Hamlet<\/em>, Tsitsi Dangarembga\u2019s <em>Nervous Conditions<\/em>, and Marguerite Poland\u2019s <em>Shades<\/em>.\u00a0 (Note that the &#8216;Notes&#8217; in the table below are the comments on the markers.)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" width=\"567\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Comments for 7A and 7B candidates<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"27\"><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\"><strong>Total out of 80<\/strong><strong>\u00a0&amp; % <\/strong><strong>for Paper<\/strong><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\"><strong>Question<\/strong><strong>selected<\/strong><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\"><strong>Total out of 25<\/strong><strong>&amp; %<\/strong><strong>for essay<\/strong><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">1<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7898%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2392%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Individual turn of phrase \u2013 fluent\/ extensive, rich vocab \u2013 lots of detail \u2013 explains comments \u2013 one paragraphing error<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">2<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7594%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">3.1<em>Nervous <\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2392%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Checks each point made; e.g., \u201cbut she was an exception\u201d \u2013 looks at implications \u2013 lang. errors do not interfere with the message.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">3<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7594%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">4.1<em>Shades<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2392%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Clarity of argument \u2013 detail for <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">both<\/span> sides of argument \u2013 lots of prep notes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">4<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7594%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2080%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Not as fine a sense of continuity, sentence to sentence [as other 90% people]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">5<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7493%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2392%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Exposition on the turning-point elaborated using text\u2019s imagery [garden] \u00a0\u2013 picks up fine points \u2013 extensive support from text.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">6<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7391%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2392%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Complex argument \u2013 succinct \u2013 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">good par. links<\/span>\/\u00a0 transitions \u2013 generalizes &amp; articulates implications \u2013 presents <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">alternative<\/span> views \u2013 seemless<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">7<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7391%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2392%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">consistently refers to elements of Q in essay \u2013 lots of examples [I think too many lang errors for 90%.] \u2013 [avenge \u2013 revenge]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">8<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7391%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2080%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Links points made with Q set; viz., recursive<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">9<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7088%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2288%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Analysis of the dilemma \u2013 80% less succinct \u2013 more likely to repeat statements \u2013 exploration with details<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">10<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7088%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2080%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Argument easy to follow \u2013 prep notes evident\u00a0 &#8211; has read over essay [amendments]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">11<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">7088%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2080%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Picks up on distinctions \/ fine points \u2013 picks out threads of an issue \u2013 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">clarity<\/span> of presentation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"27\"><\/td>\n<td colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" width=\"540\">Immediate observations: 1 \u2013 5: sprinkling of lang errors, or awkward wording probably result of writing under exam conditions. Why did some not get 100%? All do one essay only. [Should more be considered possible?]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"27\"><\/td>\n<td colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" width=\"540\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0: 90s : not much that needs to be improved in this range, and considering a variation of 5% allowed in scoring, there is little difference between 95 and 100%. A seemless sense of continuity<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"27\"><\/td>\n<td colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" width=\"540\">\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0: 80s: evidence that concentration not as sustained as 90s. Explores by commenting on details, but less succinct (than 90s) &amp; more likely to repeat statements<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"27\"><\/td>\n<td colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" width=\"540\">Observation on rubric re: \u201cunderstanding of genre\u201d. \u00a0How does one measure this? What signs demonstrate this? &#8211; [put these in rubric]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" width=\"567\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Comments for\u00a0 5C \u00a0candidates<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"27\"><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\"><strong>Total out of 80<\/strong><strong>\u00a0&amp; % <\/strong><strong>for Paper<\/strong><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\"><strong>Question<\/strong><strong>selected<\/strong><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\"><strong>Total out of 25<\/strong><strong>&amp; %<\/strong><strong>for essay<\/strong><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">1<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">5468%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">1768%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Good points \u2013 clear packaging of ideas in paragraphs \u2013 loses focus half-way through, e.g., 5\/13 par on Claudius. <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Tends <\/span>not to link comments to Q; viz., not good at tracking ideas<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">2<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">5468%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">4.1<em>Shades<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">1456%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">[I would not have given this more than code 3\/E, 40+% &#8211; faulty paragraphing &amp; prior planning]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">3<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">5366%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2288%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Concise \u2013 [I would not have given this 88%] \u2013 not get all points required \u2013 [I would say, top 60s] \u2013 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">tends<\/span> to lose focus after half-way.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">4<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">5366%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">2080%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Way<\/span> too much time on essay Q \u2013 not succinct \u2013 [I would have given this 65%] \u2013 2x lapses in logic, e.g., points juxtaposed rather than linked. \u2013 paraphrasing lapse \u2013\u00a0 reliance on story line<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">5<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">5366%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">3.1<em>Nervous<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">1872<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Too much prep detail<\/span> \u2013 has clarity of argument &amp; lots of detail.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">6<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">5265%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">4.1<em>Shades<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">1560%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Misses large part of Q \u2013 not see an alternative view \u2013 marker\u2019s comment, \u201cWrites well when on topic.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">7<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">5164%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">1248%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Too short by half a page \u2013 discussion on-the-line \u2013 a 60-percenter who is poor at essays [odd!]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">8<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">5063%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">1664%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Does order ideas<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"> using paragraphing<\/span> \u2013 some fatuous comment\u00a0 (\u201cHamlet is a play with deep meaning\u201d)\u00a0 that does not advance an argument + dubious\/ incorrect\/ unconvincing conclusions (\u201cHamlet\u2019s religious beliefs\u00a0 began to change\u201d) \u2013 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">tends<\/span> to lose focus on Q + argument \u2013 good prep notes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">9<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">4961%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">1456%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Useful rudimentary introduction \u2013 too much detail on prep \u2013 essay a bit short [ran out of time?] \u2013 Picks up on the theme and character details but not able to articulate these \u2013 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">tends<\/span> to repeat unnecessarily<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">10<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">4860%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">1664%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Bit short maybe \u2013 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">not all<\/span> the points [could plan &amp; tick once done?] \u2013 <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">tends<\/span> to use rambling (rather than subordinated) sentence structures \u2013 lapses in logic.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"27\">11<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"84\">4860%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"60\">5.1<em>Hamlet<\/em><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"96\">1352%<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"300\">Pretty glaring lang &amp; spelling errors (relegion for religion) \u2013 on-the-line discussion<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"27\"><\/td>\n<td colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" width=\"540\">Immediate observations: candidates 1 \u2013 7: some need for general spelling remediation. Comments with \u201ctends to\u201d or \u201clapses in\u201d could indicate area for this grouping of candidates (especially under-performers in the range) to work on to move up to 70s. Planning = time on Q;\u00a0 too much detail in plan;\u00a0 not all required points responded to. Considerable ability, but performance compromised by fairly technical features \u2013 spelling, planning. The capacity for clarity could advance the score to the 70s even <em>with<\/em> faulty lang usage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Results: Whole Paper and Essay Question Scores Compared<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Columns on the left reflect percentage and raw scores for the whole of paper 2 (literature). Columns on the right contain the percentage and raw scores for the essay question.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div align=\"center\">\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" width=\"235\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Paper 2 (P) vs Essay Question (Q) scores:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>7A &amp; B Candidates<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" width=\"235\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>7A<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">P %<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">x\/80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">Q<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">Q %<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">x\/25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">98<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">3.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">4.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">94<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">93<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">74<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">91<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">91<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">92<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">91<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">73<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" width=\"235\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>7B<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>When one compares the relative performance (measured in percentages) in the essay and in paper 2 as a whole, one finds that five candidates\u2019 scores for the two lie within a range of 5% of each other. (For these candidates there is little difference between the essay score and their performance in the literature paper as a whole.) The six remaining candidates achieved <strong>a percentage score lower on their essay <\/strong>than that achieved for the whole of paper 2.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div align=\"center\">\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" width=\"235\">\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Paper 2 (P) vs Essay Question (Q) scores:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>5C Candidates<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">P %<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">x\/80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">Q<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">Q %<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">x\/25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">4.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">22<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">80<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">20<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">53<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">3.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">72<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">65<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">52<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">4.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">51<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">48<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">63<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">61<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">49<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">14<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">48<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">16<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"43\">\n<p align=\"center\">60<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">48<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">5.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">52<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" width=\"48\">\n<p align=\"center\">13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>When one compares the relative performance (measured in percentages) in the essay and in paper 2 as a whole, one finds that six candidates\u2019 scores for the two, lie within a range of 5% of each other. (For these candidates there is little difference between the essay score and their performance in the literature paper as a whole.) Of the five remaining candidates, three scored a higher percentage on the essay than for paper 2 as a whole, and three scored a lower percentage on the essay than for paper 2 as a whole. (This point is commented on later in the article.)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Summary of comments and conclusions for teaching: 90s and 80s ranges<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>As indicated earlier, expressions such as \u201ctends to\u00a0 \u2026\u201d and \u201clapses in \u2026\u201d may well point to features for candidates to focus on in order to improve their performance. Secondly, the collection of the comments for the selected range of candidates provides a general profile of their performance. In the main this profile will form part of the rubric. A likely difference between rubric descriptors and a marker\u2019s comments is that the latter will include common tendencies in addition to those described in a rubric.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Candidates in the 90s range invariably presented a seemless sense of continuity;\u00a0 possessed a clarity of argument and expression, and were likely to articulate more than one view of a situation. They were likely to see two sides of an argument.\u00a0 Preparatory notes appeared to be a feature of this range. (While some exam scripts showed evidence of preparatory notes, one can assume that some candidates used their question paper \u2013 rather than script &#8211; for preparatory notes.) Another feature of this group was evidence of reading over responses to questions. This evidence came in the form of corrections and changes to their essays.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The 80s group shared the capacity for detailed exploration of the subject with the 90s group. However, the former group tended to be less succinct and more likely to repeat statements. It seems as though this group is less able to sustain concentration.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, for an under-achieving learner in the 80s range, or for a learner at the top end of this range expecting to score in the 90s, the following may well be features to focus on in order to achieve this goal:<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The candidate needs practice in writing succinctly (at both the initial writing and editing\/ reading over stages).<\/li>\n<li>This range of learners needs to seek out and correct any repetition of points while drafting and editing work. Practice in tracking the progress of their argument by ticking points in their preparatory notes may achieve the same goal.<\/li>\n<li>After having driven home a point of view, or an argument, the candidate needs to consider using expressions such as \u201cHowever, \u2026..\u201d, or \u201cThis having been said, \u2026..\u201d, because they will alert the candidate to an alternative view, or another side to an argument.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Summary of comments and conclusions for teaching: 60s range<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>This range comprises learners whose considerable ability is often undermined in the exam by technical inefficiencies. This study finds that most of these technicalities relate to planning. Academic skills to do with planning need to be \u201csold\u201d &#8211; particularly to under-performing candidates who score between 65 and 69%, because they probably have the most to gain from using these skills. These candidates need both to set and adhere to time limits in tests and exams. A candidate who includes too much detail in preparatory notes for a response clearly signals the need for better planning skills. Some scripts reveal that the candidate spent far too much time on a particular question. This appeared to have left them insufficient time for completing other parts of the paper. Observations made here on candidates\u2019 ability to focus and to concentrate may also point to the need for improved planning within an exam, or test. Candidates, for example, write preparatory notes, but then fail to use them in their essay. The marker\u2019s comment, \u201cWrites well when on topic\u201d characterizes the dilemma common to this range of learners; namely, that the candidate\u2019s ability to learn is often compromised by faulty performance. It is interesting to see that there are both positive and negative comments relating to the clarity of argument in this group, as well as positive and negative comments on the use of paragraphs. Difficulties in using paragraphs successfully, and in developing clarity of argument may well be connected to the ability to use preparatory notes effectively.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>For under-achieving learners in the 60s range, or for learners at the top end of this range expecting to score in the 70s, the following agenda for learning may well assist in achieving this goal:<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>These candidates need practice in setting time limits for writing preparatory notes (both for assignments and in tests), and they need to practise jotting down these notes within this time limit. (Initial plans for an assignment could be written down within a time-limit appropriate for a test. Learners could then discuss the efficacy of a sample of these.)<\/li>\n<li>Candidates need practice in writing out time limits for an entire (sample, or past) exam question paper. (It may be useful to have some form of discussion on ideas that are presented.)<\/li>\n<li>Candidates would benefit from practice in analysing questions so that all aspects of the question are included in preparatory jottings.<\/li>\n<li>Learners in this performance range should practise keeping to the plan, and practise checking that items have been included in the essay. (Tracking the use of items in a plan is difficult to teach. However, having learners design a <em>post hoc<\/em> flow chart, or concept map on a given essay, and then comparing notes, is one way of achieving this. Heather Meyer (2005) reports success in this method of teaching writing.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conclusion and Further Questions about Performance in Exams<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>A small number of exam scripts (22 in all \u2013 11 of the highest ranges and 11 for the 60 percent range) were analysed with a view to determining an agenda for best items to learn in order to improve scores. Three key items were suggested for learners in the top 80 percent range, and four key items were suggested for learners at the top of the second range. Clearly a teacher would need to confirm that the comments mentioned here apply to candidates scoring within these two ranges at his or her institution.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>When one considers comments such as \u201cconcentration not as sustained as 90s\u201d one wonders at which point a candidate scoring, for example 86%, is achieving optimally for his or her ability, and is not likely to be a candidate for improvement. While teachers often have an unerring sense of candidates achieving to their ability and also those who do not, how does one test this instinctive sense? A description of demonstrable characterizing features could be used to confirm a teacher\u2019s instinctive opinion. Such a list could be as motivating for a learner capable of improving on performance as it would for those who perform optimally. One wonders whether a teacher\u2019s knowledge of learners is solely responsible for determining these features, or whether indicators could be identified independently by viewing test, exam, or assignment scripts.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>A final question. Given the generally rough correlation between essay scores and overall exam scores for the middle order (60s range), one wonders whether comments for this range of candidates provide an equally useful guide on their performance in contextual questions in a literature exam.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>A final comment. While only the readers of this action research article will judge whether findings (expressed in diagnostic comment) are accurate or not, and whether conclusions for a teaching agenda prove successful or not, I am of the opinion that a focused approach to analysing performance in exam scripts is likely to produce a focused knock-on effect in teaching. In addition, readers may find that the model of analysis used here is easily replicable for other ranges of scores and consequently may open a door to progress for under-achievers in these other ranges. By seeking an alternative to the generic examiner\u2019s report, one finds oneself inevitably stepping off the treadmill of current exam reporting practices. In doing so, one is probably more likely to find clearly articulated and manageable ways of directing the way learning can be achieved \u2013 a rewarding experience for any teacher.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>References<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Department of Education. Rubric for Marking the Essay Question for Novel and Drama. <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Guidelines for the Setting of Grade 12 Examinations in Languages. 2009<\/span>. Page 21.<\/p>\n<p>Heather Meyer. 2005. Analysing argumentative writing. <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">English in Education <\/span>vol.39 No.3 pages 78 \u2013 92.<\/p>\n<p>KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education Circular 32 of 2004. <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Examiners\u2019 Reports: November 2003 Senior Certificate Examination<\/span>. 23 March 2004.<\/p>\n<p>Unpublished. <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Minutes of the English (Home Language) Provincial Advisory meeting held on 12 and 13 January 2009 in the Richard\u2019s Hotel in Richards Bay.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This article describes a method of analyzing Grade 12 English Home Language literature exam scripts with a view to pin-pointing a manageable number of academic skills that underperformers may need to master in order to perform at their level of competence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[12],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/726"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=726"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/726\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":863,"href":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/726\/revisions\/863"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teachenglishtoday.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}