[English] Meet the Assessors

[PeterPidduck at caulfieldgs.vic.edu.au]

Dear All
I am glad we have the opportunity to get feedback from the assessors in
English, especially as they often raise as many questions as they
answer, which is healthy for the profession. I am particularly curious
about what people made of the advice given by the Meet the Assessor
panel last Thursday for VCE English with regard to some of the text
questions asked by VCAA. When dealing with student responses to the
question 'Does the film-maker's use of visual imagery and setting help
or hinder the viewer's understanding of the concerns of the
characters?', we were told repeatedly how excellent the question was for
its ability to differentiate between students (actually, I think the
more telling phrase 'discriminate between students' was used), but
surely, even if there seemed to be a categorical determination to assert
the excellence of the exam, people are right to feel that this question
uncovers many problems with the expectation of the new course. We were
lectured about the need for students to link the author's language
choices to interpretation as though this was a new rationale for
English, but I don't believe that this is the main thrust of the
criticism to a question like this (the repeated defence of the question
at least implies that there was criticism). 

To ask whether the form helps or hinders with the content is very
difficult, because it assumes problematically that the form can exist
independent of the content (thus the very understanding that apparently
underpins the question is contradicted in the question). The sample
response flashed all too briefly on the PowerPoint (it seemed from my
too brief perusal) clearly examined the director's use of imagery and
linked it to a defined understanding of the characters' concerns, but
when looking at whether it helped or hindered, it had to be rather
superficial because what can you say? For example, if a student were to
write something like: 'By using animation to depict Meryl's anxiety
about death, we get an insight into the way she visualises the world
through her Art whilst emphasising the worries are taking place inside
her head, detached from the external world, and so the visual imagery is
very helpful in communicating her state of mind' , surely the last
clause answers the question, but to what end? The meat is in linking the
visual imagery to the character's concerns, not in evaluating whether
they help or hinder, although a student would be marked down if he/she
didn't make some sort of comment in this direction. And as such, any
student who had looked at the link between what was in the film with why
it was there could answer the question, if indeed they were not so
confused by what they had to do with the question in the first place.
And widespread confusion there was (at least, that seems to be many of
the whispers I have heard in relation to many of the same styled
questions). In a situation of widespread confusion, the fault either
lies with a) the student, b) the teacher, c) the exam setter, and where
I might be wrong to assume c), I felt the speaker at the VCAA Meet the
Assessors strongly, and erroneously, implied a).

My main point is that where it is desirable to have students forge their
interpretations from an awareness of the language choices an author has
made, asking questions in this way has the effect of closing down such
an enquiry; indeed, as I formerly suggested, it treats form as though
itr can be considered independently of the interpretation of content.
And regardless whether or not I will find agreement with my
observations, I am a little concerned that any honest criticism of the
exam or exam marking process is construed as griping that is to be met
with a blanket statement of the paper's excellence (I seem to remember
the term 'brilliant' - or a similarly inflated superlative - being used
to refer to the writing of section 3. There are a lot of words to
describe this composition, but 'brilliant' - I'd need more convincing.
Why did the examination need such active talking-up?).

What do other people think?

Regards
Peter