Paper 1 Sample - Justin Gatlin V6

• Engels
• Middelbare school
• vwo
• Leerjaar 6

Paper 1 Sample

Guiding question: How does the author use language to characterize Justin Gatlin?

Read the sample Paper 1:

The Sun article about Justin Gatlin 
on the following slide

https:

https:

Criterion A: Understanding and interpretation (5 marks)

• To what extent does the student show an understanding of the text? What inferences can the student reasonably make?
• To what extent does the student support their claims with references to the text?
  

What would you score this Paper 1?
2-5 points

1. 2
2. 3
3. 4
4. 5

3 out of 5: 

3 out of 5: The student understands the literal meaning of the text – a biased online article about Gatlin’s win. There is also some satisfactory understanding of the implications too. Finally, the references are generally relevant. However, it is too repetitive to score above a 3 here, in both the evidence (quotations) used and the arguments/interpretations being made. It’s not a 2 either and the 3 band is the right “fit” for what the student has produced. 

Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation (5 marks)

• How well does the student does the student evaluate the ways in which language and style establish meaning and effect?

How would you score this paper 1 sample?

1. 2
2. 3
3. 4
4. 5

3 out of 5:

  This is not reliant on description and therefore a 2 is not awarded. While there is some description at times, there are more times that the student makes an author focused claim. While it is sometimes in a “this shows” type of manner, it is generally appropriate.  

What could be added?

"Gatlin was abused and “booed” for winning a race, which is the opposite of what should have happened. The author’s use of such phrases and facts portrays to the reader how disliked he was. Gatlin’s win had become an opportunity for the haters to show their displeasure and hatred for him. The author, therefore, is able to characterize him as a tainted hero."

Better:

The author repeatedly attempts to define Gatlin a cheating drug-addict to negatively bias the reader’s opinion of the American athlete. This incessant characterisation of Gatlin as a lying cheater reaches the pinnacle in line 24 where the author quotes the crowd screaming “cheat, cheat, cheat” at Gatlin – the athlete’s achievements and incredible feat of defeating Bolt is neglected by the author who instead attempts to cast suspicion upon Gatlin’s victory. It is known that Gatlin was involved in doping scandal in 2005 and this fact is referenced by the author in line three of the article. By consistently referencing and explicitly mentioning Gatlin’s doping scandals, the author attempts to question the physical legitimacy of Gatlin’s victory.

Criterion C: Focus and organisation (5 marks)

• How effectively does the student structure and present their ideas?
  
• How balanced and focused is the response?
  

Score for criteria C?

1. 2
2. 3
3. 4
4. 5

3 out of 5:  

There is some focus in the analysis. The student focuses on the question and doesn’t stray from that focus. It’s adequately organized in a generally coherent manner. It’s neither below this description (little focus) or above this description (well-organized).

Criterion D: Language (5 marks)

• How clear, varied, and accurate is the student’s language?
  
• To what extent is the student’s choice of register, style, and terminology appropriate?

Score for criteria D?

1. 2
2. 3
3. 4
4. 5

3 out of 5: 

Register and style are mostly appropriate to the task. There’s just too many little errors or clunky sentences with the occasional wrong word (“haters” for example) to go beyond this. 

 A 3 is appropriate here as a 2 is too punative for what the student has done.

The following link will give you a response from a student who scored very high marks. Note the difference between the previous where the work does not match the level of interpretation and analysis required for top marks

https:

What the IB said.

 A. 5 out of 5: There is a thorough and perceptive understanding of the literal meaning of the text. The candidate understands what the author is doing and why. It's convincing and insightful with the quotations or evidence from the text effectively supporting the candidate's ideas.

B. 4 out of 5: The biggest issue with this guided textual analysis is not dealing enough with all parts of the text (and/or focusing too much attention on the beginning of the text). How Bolt views Gatlin is missing and while a student doesn't have to do everything, this would have aided in establishing how the author creates meaning. And yet, there is clearly consistent analysis of the author's choices to warrant this mark.    

C. 5 out of 5: The presentation of ideas is effectively organized and coherent with well-focused analysis. An argument could be made that the student didn't deal with enough of the text, but that was already considered in criterion B. For what the candidate did do, it was effective and well-focused.    

D. 5 out of 5: The candidate has a strong command of the language: vocabulary is sophisticated; grammar is accurate; and the voice of the writer is engaged and lively.