Commentary on candidate 1 evidence

Transcription

1 Commentary on candidate 1 evidence The evidence for this candidate has achieved the following marks for Section 2 Question 5 of the Question Paper. Identify aspects of themes in the play 1/3 The candidate understood that heroism had not led to happiness in the play Medea. The candidate had chosen to use the character Medea s personality to illustrate this. However, it was not clearly shown how the ability to speak well or fear of ridicule was related to heroism, although bravery was well explained. There were no contrary aspects in the main body of the essay and the theme was felt to be limited, hence the award of 1 mark. Analysis of the theme in the wider Classical world and in the modern world 2/6 This was an area of weakness in this essay. The candidate attempted to illustrate how other characters (Ajax and Creon) had behaved similarly to Medea. These were not well developed and the criteria for scoring marks is to show how the aspect is understood in the wider concept of the Greek concept of Heroism. Hence no marks were awarded in this category. The comments regarding Nicola Sturgeon were not given any marks as they did not relate to Heroism. The candidate did make good comparisons with modern soldiers and suffragettes, for which 2 marks were awarded. Evaluation 2/3 The candidate met the criteria for the award of 2 marks. The knowledge was used to produce some good arguments, and the meaning was clear throughout. The candidate failed to gain 3 marks as it was felt that the argument fell short of detail (for example is Medea a hero at all? Could other characters be seen as heroic? Is Medea happy at the end of the play?). Use of Knowledge 4/6 The candidate met the criteria for the 4-5 band. The knowledge was judged as detailed and accurate, but the exemplification was not sustained enough to gain full marks, and the candidate chose to use only one play and one character as the basis for their essay, with three character attributes discussed. Conclusion 2/2 The conclusion was very good. The comments about Medea being an unconventional hero and the fact that she causes misery for her and others are well made indeed if these had been developed in the main body they would have resulted in higher marks. Overall the essay was awarded 11/20. 1 of 9

2 Commentary on candidate 2 evidence The evidence for this candidate has achieved the following marks for Section 2 Question 6 of the Question Paper. Identify aspects of themes in the play 2/3 The candidate understood that family conflict was a major issue in two plays, Oedipus and Antigone. They made some comments about how the issues were linked in the plays to a limited extent, but there were no arguments about how they could be interpreted in different ways or use of contrast. Analysis of the theme in the wider Classical world and in the modern world 3/6 The candidate did not attempt to discuss the concept of family conflict within the Classical world, or discussion of a woman s role within a family in Ancient Greece and how this related to the texts. The candidate made some valid points about modern family conflicts and linked them well to the text (especially the points about domestic violence) and was awarded 3 marks for this. The point about conflict in the world in the shape of wars was not viewed as a valid point, as the comparison was not about families, and the candidate had not chosen to discuss other possible conflicts in the world. The candidate has to link their points about the modern world to their texts. Evaluation 1/3 The candidate based their essay on a single argument - the failure of characters to communicate with each other. Hence it was judged as limited, giving a mark of 1. Although two texts were discussed, they were treated largely independently, and there was no attempt to show contrasts and comparisons between them. The analysis of Oedipus was viewed as limited, giving little consideration to the fact that he is presented in the context of a loving family and as a caring father. Use of Knowledge 3/6 It was felt that the candidate began reasonably well, but that the answer tended towards plot narration especially towards the end. The comments about conflict were at times shoe-horned into the essay. Selection of the material used was scattered and lacked depth in places. The fact that the candidate did not discuss any other type of conflict, as the wording of the question invited candidates to do, resulted in a limit to the relevance of the knowledge. The knowledge was limited but was more than plot telling. It is important to note that candidates should be aware that giving any six points of knowledge about the text(s) they use will not automatically result in full marks. Conclusion 0/2 There was no clear conclusion so therefore no marks were awarded. Overall the essay was therefore awarded 9/20. 2 of 9

3 Commentary on candidate 3 evidence The evidence for this candidate has achieved the following marks for Section 2 Question 6 of the Question Paper. Identify aspects of themes in the play 2/3 The candidate understood that family conflict was a major issue in two plays, Medea and Antigone, although they were not linked. Within the play Medea, the candidate identified family conflict as motivating both Jason and Medea, thus showing a link and a contrast. Analysis of the theme in the wider Classical world and in the modern world 4/6 The candidate did not discuss the concept of family conflict within the Classical world, or discussion of a woman s role within a family in Ancient Greece and how this related to the texts. The candidate made some valid points about modern family conflicts and linked them well to the text. The extended comment about the character of Othello was well made and clearly had a parallel with Jason (although it would have been better had the candidate made this point explicitly). The point about Lord of the Flies was well made and justified. It is perfectly acceptable to draw parallels with literature which may not be contemporary, but which is read today, so long as it is valid and appropriate. Evaluation 2/3 The candidate produced a good number of arguments to justify their view points, as noted above by examining both Medea s and Jason s concept of the family, Medea s previous betrayal of her family, and showing how Antigone is also a play about family conflict, but without contrasting them. If the candidate had judged that other conflicts were perhaps also important (eg religious or gender) they would have been awarded 3 marks. Use of Knowledge 4/6 It was felt that the candidate had selected appropriate events in the plays (more successfully in their discussion of Medea than in Antigone) to illustrate their answer with some exemplification. However, the candidate used some of the material to discuss how the playwrights used the tension to increase the suspense and anticipation of the audience. This is not appropriate to the essay and so parts were judged as unrelated to the issue. Conclusion 2/2 The conclusion was judged as fulfilling both criteria of the conclusion as a summary and some balancing. The candidate tried here to make a comment about the Greek concept of family, but it was vague and inappropriate to a conclusion. Again the comments about dramatic scenes and plot twists were irrelevant to the judgement about the conclusion. Overall the essay was therefore awarded 14/20. 3 of 9

4 Commentary on candidate 4 evidence The evidence for this candidate has achieved the following marks for Questions 9 and 10 (a) of the Question Paper. Question 9 Overall the candidate scored 6/8. Source A: the candidate scored 1/2. The candidate correctly identified that the Lares protected the family home, but failed to provide further elaboration. Source B: the candidate scored 1/2. The candidate described Vesta as a goddess of fire and the hearth as the source described. However the candidate failed to give further information (eg the clues to her antiquity and that she continued to be worshipped when her primitive functions had lost some of their importance). Source C: the candidate scored 2/2. The candidate scored a point for describing further the significance of Janus (although confusing the gender), and describing the importance of the Penates. Possible points of significant omission: the candidate gained an additional 2 marks. Further discussion of the Penates (candidates can gain additional marks for further amplification of a point from the source) Discussion of the concept of the genius However the point about Vesta was not awarded a mark as it was felt to be vague and largely drawn from information already given in Source B; nor was the point about spirits protecting Romans in the city as this again was not well explained. Question 10 (a) Overall the candidate scored 9/12. Knowledge: the candidate scored 7 marks for knowledge. Points which were credited were: Augury (2 marks animal flights and animal calls) Military sacrifices Inspection of sacrifices Use of Sibylline books (2 marks for additional explanation) Weather signs Analysis: the candidate scored 2 marks for analysis which was weaker. 1 mark was awarded for simple analysis - cause and effect. 4 of 9

5 Sibylline books were used for political purposes (although an example would have helped make this clearer) 1 mark was awarded for a contrast there were two types of omens those looked for and those which simply occurred. The candidate might have scored higher if they had discussed the fact that some Romans, such as Cicero, rejected these signs as superstitious nonsense. Overall the candidate scored 15/20 for their answers to Section 1. 5 of 9

6 Commentary on candidate 5 evidence The evidence for this candidate has achieved the following marks for Questions 1 and 2 (a) of the Question Paper. Question 1 Overall the candidate scored 8/8 Provenance: the candidate scored 2/2. The candidate discussed Plutarch and stated that he would be able to access more information than we have today. The candidate also noted that Plutarch was writing sometime after the events described, and noted that facts could be altered. The candidate made comments about possible bias. These were not credited (although the candidate had gained 2 points already for provenance). The candidate would need to explain specifically where there might be bias perhaps looking at the fact that Plutarch is writing as a fellow Greek. Interpretation of Source Content: the candidate scored 2/2. The candidate discussed two aspects of Pericles leadership; his ability to speak well, and his alliance with the lower-classes. In each case the candidate clearly showed why this was important; in swaying people in debate (it might have been clearer to specifically say in the assembly); and by appealing to the lower classes, thus ensuring that he enjoyed the support of the majority in Athens. Points of Specific Content omitted or further expansion of points in the Source: the candidate scored 4/4. The candidate made four points: Discussion of Pericles building programme. On its own this gained 2 marks, as the candidate described it, gave an example (the Parthenon) and then explained its effect. Pericles gave the Athenians a sense of security through the Delian League again this would have been worth 2 marks on its own due to the depth of explanation. Pericles introduced payment for jury service, and the effect clearly stated. Pericles forcing the allies to come to Athens, and thus boosting the Athenian economy this point seems somewhat contrived, but the candidate had gained 4 marks for this already. What is particularly effective about this answer is the clear explanation of each point raised. 6 of 9

7 Question 2 (a) Overall the candidate scored 11/12. Knowledge: the candidate scored 8 marks. Points which were credited were: The impact of tribute The treatment of rebellious states (2 marks due to mention of Thasos in later paragraph) Movement of the league treasury to Athens (although the phrase majority of the league funds is inaccurate) The use of oaths The use of garrisons The impact of Athenian courts on the members of the League The imposition of a single currency (2 marks as an example was given) The candidate made 9 points which attracted credit for knowledge, but there are only 8 available marks. These points were linked to the analysis. Analysis: the candidate scored 3 marks. 2 marks were awarded for simple analysis - cause and effect. The candidate explained that the consequence of the payment of tribute would be the impoverishment and weakening of the ally The consequences of imposing Athenian courts upon the allies To gain further marks, the candidate needed to provide a contrast or comparison, or show different interpretations on a factor. It was judged that the candidate s comment about the imposition of a currency showed a difference of interpretation. The candidate showed that the single currency on the one hand made trade easier, but also allowed the Athenians to control the economy of their allies. Hence the candidate was awarded 1 mark. Further opportunities might have been to argue, as Pericles did, that so long as Athens protected her allies, she was entitled to use the funds as she wished, or that the transfer of funds from Delos to Athens was to ensure their safety as they were vulnerable to attack on an Aegean island. Overall the answer was very detailed and worthy of a very high mark. The candidate gave an introduction and a conclusion to their answer (as a number of candidates do). No marks are awarded in a 12 mark question to these unless they contain meaningful knowledge or analysis. If the candidate had begun their answer at the second paragraph, this would have been a good start. 7 of 9

8 Commentary on candidate 6 evidence The evidence for this candidate has achieved the following marks for Questions 1 and 2 (b) of the Question Paper. Question 1 Overall the candidate scored 3/8. Provenance: the candidate scored 0/2. The candidate seemed to fail to recognise that the source was written a number of centuries after the time of Pericles. As a result, their comments about Plutarch gained no marks. The comment that Plutarch had heard about the events is ambiguous, and highlights the importance of clear language and explaining points. Perhaps the candidate has failed to recognise that Plutarch is a secondary source. If the candidate was unsure about the contemporaneity of the source, they could have chosen to comment on the purpose of the source or the fact that Plutarch was a biographer. Interpretation of Source Content: the candidate scored 2/2. The candidate gained no marks for their comments regarding Pericles coming late to politics as they failed to show that this was relevant to the question about his popularity. Sources at Higher can contain distractors which are not relevant to the question. The candidate was judged as not properly explaining the significance of the fact that he drew support from the poor. The candidate did not explain how he did this in this part of the answer or the significance that Athens was a democracy. The candidate mentioned ostracism, but failed to explain what it was, or how allying with the poorer would protect Pericles from ostracism. The candidate gained 1 mark for an explanation of the importance of the significance of speaking well, and at this point linking it to the poorer classes. The candidate might have made the point better had there been an explanation of the importance of oratory by referring to how the assembly operated in Athens. The point about military service was well made and gained 1 point. Points of Specific Content omitted or further expansion of points in the Source: the candidate gained 1/4. The candidate made two points about plays, parades and festivals. This is true, but was felt to be underdeveloped (why would this make him popular?) and so overall these comments were awarded 1 mark. Question 2 (b) Overall the candidate scored 6/12. Knowledge: the candidate scored 4 marks. Points which were credited were: 8 of 9

9 Number of meetings of council (although in fact the time mentioned by the candidate suggests they are really discussing the assembly, which the marker overlooked) Impact on their employment The implications of becoming a general Understanding that citizens travelling far from the countryside were particularly burdened The candidate mentioned service in the council, but stated inaccurately that service in the council was compulsory; hence no mark was awarded. The comments regarding Athenian women were not judged as relevant, as women were not citizens. Analysis: the candidate scored 2 marks. The analysis was judged as weak and was mostly implicit: it was felt that the candidate had understood that there were distinctions and contrasts between rich and poor (comments about generals being from a small elite) and the differences between city dwellers and those in the countryside. Overall the candidate scored 9/20 for their answers to Section 1. 9 of 9