1. Module A: Comparative Study of Texts and Context The comparative study of texts in relation to historical or cultural contexts.

2. This module requires students to compare texts in order to explore them in relation to their contexts. This means… You have to look at two different texts – and figure out how they are the same! Comparing means to “find similarities”… You should look for 3 different things in your texts – the social ideas shown – the cultural ideas shown – and – the historical (time and place) ideas shown

3. The way you feel about your life shows the way you “value” different parts of your life… which, in turn, shows you the things that you “value”.

4. It develops students’ understanding of the effects of context and questions of value. What “value” (or importance) does the composer put on the particular social ideas – cultural ideas – and/or historical ideas… in each text.

5. Students examine ways in which social, cultural and historical context influences aspects of texts, or the ways in which changes in context lead to changed values being reflected in texts. How do important ideas about the society the culture the history (time and place) in a text Change… when someone - or something - changes the text’s ◦ society ◦ culture ◦ history (time and place)?

6. This includes study and use of the language of texts, consideration of purposes and audiences, and analysis of the content, values and attitudes conveyed through a range of readings. This means… You have to learn the style and structure of your texts – and be able to write in the same style and structure You have to know what the purpose of the text – and who the target audience of the text is! You have to learn the technical names and effects of the language – and how this shows characters and events and opinions (of the society, culture and history)

8. Students develop a range of imaginative, interpretive and analytical compositions that relate to the comparative study of texts and context. These compositions may be realised in a variety of forms and media. This just means that you have to write your own texts – and your own analysis – in different text- types: Feature article Newspaper report Review Conversation Website blog… etc…

9. General Comments Elective 2 was the most popular elective with approximately 40% of all candidates attempting the question on Frankenstein and BladeRunner. Better responses developed a thesis which addressed the question and demonstrated a strong conceptual understanding of the module and the elective. These responses embedded an evaluation of the relationship between text and context in the analysis of the texts and thus revealed a wide-ranging understanding of context and how that was reflected in texts. These responses also incorporated an analysis of the ways in which a comparative study invited deeper understanding of the concepts suggested by the question. Weaker responses tended to make connections between texts often through lengthy description and recount. They were explanatory and narrative rather than analytical. These responses did not demonstrate evaluative judgements and treatment of context was often superficial or absent. Textual references were often not well selected or integrated into the discussion of the two texts studied. Notes from the marking centre

10. Question 1 – Exploring Connections Better responses demonstrated a conceptual understanding of the module and a deeper understanding of ambition, place, relationships or suffering and identity through detailed analysis and evaluative comments both implicit and explicit. The relationship between texts and contexts was evaluated and textual reference was detailed and selected discerningly. A discriminating feature was a candidate’s ability to engage with the terms of the question and shape a response accordingly. Weaker responses adopted a more literal approach to the question and confined the discussion to the more thematic elements of the texts and making simple connections between texts. Treatment of context was not integrated into the discussion and was frequently a series of listed facts rather than an understanding of context as influencing the texts being discussed. These responses often lacked appropriate textual detail and occasionally showed an unbalanced treatment of texts.