From the Examiners' Report on the 2003 summer AS examination.
Successful candidates:
Good answers were those where candidates:
- planned their answers which had a clear structure
- developed a consistent argument across their answers with effective linking paragraphs
- discussed and interpreted the key words in a variety of ways
- analysed and explored rather than described and narrated
- devised openings which demonstrated an overview of the argument and then proceeded to build
the "golden chain" of successive points in the argument
Less successful candidates:
Weaker answers had the following characteristics:
- lack of knowledge and understanding of text
- poor examination technique
- problems with expression – spelling, punctuation, paragraphing etc.
- using overlong quotations, or writing out the quotation but failing to use it in the construction of
the argument
- presenting character studies or telling the story, neglecting the text as
constructTo turn to the questions and consider them in turn.
Question 7
Successful candidates:
•
wrote detailed and conceptualised answers which sustained the linking of the themes•
maintained a clear focus on "presentation" and Guterson’s technique•
looked at the ways Guterson represented how Ishmael was faced throughout with the consequencesof the difficulty of forgiveness
•
saw how his father and mother epitomised the wisdom of tolerance•
noted that the final scene of forgiveness between Kabuo and Carl on Carl’s boat was both intimateand hidden – also that Carl’s father’s original intentions had been realised
•
ranged widely through the text•
showed secure knowledge and understanding of text using close reference and quotation•
expressed themselves clearly and cogentlyLess successful candidates:
•
tended to write about prejudice and racism instead of forgiveness and tolerance•
struggled to respond to the terms or listed without analysing•
failed to define tolerance – too often equated it with "putting up with" rather than identifying it as an active quality•
needed to widen the argument to look at the nature of the tussles between the values and beliefs in the novel•
were limited in scope, focusing mainly on forgiveness•
described or narrated long parts of the text•
wrote in a convoluted wayQuestion 8
Successful candidates:
•
looked at the whole novel, ranging widely and using cultural differences and the war selectively•
noted that the contexts of war and migration affected them both in harsh yet separate ways, thoughIshmael was the more privileged
•
explored the development of the relationship from childhood to teenage years to adulthood•
adopted other viewpoints than Ishmael’s•
saw the relationship as a rite of passage for Ishmael, a structural device to show his gradualdevelopment
•
traced the reserve of Hatsue from the start of the relationship using Guterson’s subtle pointers;noting "all of it had been delusion" and recognising that the narration left her feelings more in
doubt
•
compared the two clam digging episodes – Kabuo and Hatsue, and then Hatsue and Ishmael•
developed the links to the weather, nature and the seasons, noting especially that as the snow melts, so Ishmael begins to forgive•
linked the justice/injustice of the trial with their relationship, noting that the two cultures wereirreconcilable
•
claimed that the individualism of western values meant that Hatsue would have to give up herintegrity to continue with Ishmael, but that part of her still cared for him
•
felt that Hatsue was less naïve than Ishmael, able to see the bigger picture as a result of herexperiences of racism and oppression
•
saw that she wanted Ishmael to become his father’s son, recognising the goodness of his heart•
showed secure knowledge and understanding of the text, using quotation and close referenceLess successful candidates:
•
simply re-told the basic, early love story with blame attached either to Hatsue or her parents forIshmael’s distress
•
did not recognise the narrative bias or the evidence to the contrary in the extract•
failed to use the extract•
lacked subtlety and accuracy•
often made the mistake of implying that both sets of parents would have been against therelationship
•
saw the text from a limited ethnocentric perspective•
failed to recognise that what Guterson may have been trying to suggest, more pluralistically, was that the different values attached to the concepts of love and marriage by different cultures and religions were at work here, causing misunderstanding and heartbreak for both Hatsue and Ishmael•
struggled with "presentation"•
wrote after the fashion of Mills and Boon at the bottom end•
offered little textual support•
expressed themselves in a convoluted way