Paper 1, Question 1
Rookie Olympic Sprinter Usain Bolt Wins 100m Dash!
Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt just won his first gold medal in the 100m dash yesterday in a spectacular display of talent and speed. Off the line he was stuck behind veteran sprinter Richard Thompson due to a late start and a minor stumble. It took him about twenty meters to recover; then, like a hawk, he laser focused on the finish line and Thompson. In an interview after the race, Bolt stated, “After I recovered I started looking for my teammate, Asafa. It took me a while to realize that I was behind Thompson and that it was just him and me and that my teammate was far behind me. Once I realized I was catching up with Thompson I got excited which made me run faster.” At that point there was nothing holding him back. He gained speed staggeringly quick and took off. Not even Thompson was a match for his unequivocal speed. His legs at full extension, he blew past Thompson, putting him in the lead. With another ten meters to go he began to celebrate knowing that he had just won his first Olympic race and his first gold medal. He threw his arms up in celebration.
Answer A
My news piece is different from the autobiography mainly because it is from the perspective of a spectator rather than from the first person. The autobiography is obviously written with Bolt’s thoughts and feelings while in the race in the forefront. A news article is structured in a way that gets the basic message across in the fastest way possible before the reader loses interest. This is accomplished by using the 5 “w”s: Who, What, Where, Why, and When. An autobiography does not have to follow this format and can instead focus on the thoughts and feelings of the author. Another major difference is the language and tone. A newspaper article doesn’t express inner thoughts and feelings like in an autobiography and is overall more formal than an autobiography. A newspaper is not meant to convey feelings but is written for the purpose of giving information as efficiently as possible. Also, the structure of a news article puts the key information in the beginning instead of giving it to the reader as it happened. This is called the upside down triangle method. It represents the amount of information compared to the time the reader spends reading the article. Another major difference is the audience. The audience of a newspaper article more than likely would know very little about Usain Bolt at the time of publishing (if it was published the day after the race) and not really care about reading a whole article about him. The audience of an autobiography written by him later in his career is more than likely a fan of Usain Bolt and therefore is already captivated by his story meaning that they will more than willingly read the whole thing. In the end, these pieces serve completely different purposes. The news article aims to give the reader hard facts and information. An article should also be completely factual and not contain personal feelings or thoughts of the author. My article doesn’t contain my own thoughts and feelings and is just an account of the race with a bit of flair to keep the reader engaged and feel like they’re there. An autobiography’s purpose is to give insight into the perspective of the author and give the reader a life story. This is why people who have autobiographies are successful and generally are well known. This autobiography gives deep insight into Bolt’s thoughts and feelings during the race as well as talks directly to the reader. In a news article, you generally don’t directly engage the reader like in an autobiography.
Hey Andy,
ReplyDeleteTable A:
A01:
For Table A, Section A01, I am going to give you 3 out of 5 marks. Your writing style and word choices were great, but I felt like your language was a little extra and took away from the story. You had a basic understanding of the text saying things like “His legs at full extension, he blew past Thompson, putting him in the lead.” but lacked crucial details that really could make your article better.
A02:
For Table A, Section A02, I am going to give you 2 out of 5 marks. Like I said in my A01, I felt like your impressive language took away from the real meaning of the article. Your expression is clear, but the flow of the article is kind of rough. You focus on quoting Bolt's text more than writing your own text. Representing the audience, I felt like I couldn’t really connect with what you were writing about because Bolt wrote a bunch of it, if you get what I mean.
TABLE B:
A01:
For this category, I am going to give you 2 out of 5 marks. While you did talk about both texts, you failed to use any quotes from your article or Usain Bolt’s autobiography. Also, in your piece of literature, you talk about how newspaper articles and autobiographies are different rather than how your personal article and Bolt’s autobiography are different. Most of the time, you really don’t even compare and contrast the two pieces of literature. An example of this is “An article should also be completely factual and not contain personal feelings or thoughts of the author.” and “An autobiography’s purpose is to give insight into the perspective of the author and give the reader a life story.” This is why I am giving this section 2 out of 5 marks.
A03:
For this section I am going to give you 4 out of 10 marks. Like I said before, you had little comparison in your section B (On a personal scale) and the comparisons you did have are pretty common knowledge amongst writers or people that know literature. One of the best parts of this section was your explanation/format. I liked the way you went into detail and depth about the difference between the two styles of writing but I wish it could have been more personalized to your article. I loved the opening sentence, “My news piece is different from the autobiography mainly because it is from the perspective of a spectator rather than from the first person.” and I felt like this could have been the perfect introduction to the more personal level comparisons and why yours is personally different from Bolt’s. Finally, you do mention the audience and how the “upside down triangle” works, but you don’t really talk about how each different type of literature truly affects and leaves an impact on the reader.
Overall, I did like your work but due to the rubric I had to give the proper scoring. You have a lot of potential as a writer and I can clearly see that, but in the future make sure to really stay on the topic and be more personalized to your own work.
Hey Andy, I think you had a pretty decent blog.
ReplyDeleteAO1- For section AO1, I am giving you 4 out of 5 marks. You had a clear understanding of the text and made sure to show that in your writing. My only issue is the reference to the autobiography in your article. While you tried to make it seem as if it was from an interview, the main focus of your article should have been on the race and not anything else.
AO2- For section AO2, I am giving you 3 out of 5 marks. Your use of language wasn’t bad, instead I think it kind of made the article more interesting to read. And aside from the ‘interview’ mentioned in your article, you stayed on task and talked about the race.
AO3- For section AO3, I am giving you 4 out of 10 marks. The main focus of section b was to analyze both texts and compare the two. There was little to none analysis. Instead, you mainly chose to focus on the structure of your newspaper article. There were also no quoted references to either texts.
Table A:
ReplyDeleteA01:
For this portion of the first question, I would give you a 4/5. You show a detailed understanding of the text and you are even able to provide a quote about the event. I feel that you discussed everything that needed to be discussed and did an excellent job at showing your knowledge of the text. Although I feel that there could have been a greater reference to characteristic features.
A02:
For this portion, I would score you at 4/5 as well. The content is relevant to the audience and stays focused on the event. You are able to discuss the event without any inaccuracy. You were also able to show effective expression. The main reason I scored you one under a perfect score is that I felt the piece lacked some emotion. While the piece is supposed to be formal, it was no more than a description. This does not impede communication though, leaving me to believe that this is a 4/5.
Table B:
A01:
I would give a 3/5 for this section. I feel that you show a clear understanding of the text here but you are also slightly repetitive in your finding, "A news article is structured in a way that gets the basic message across in the fastest way possible before the reader loses interest," "A newspaper article doesn’t express inner thoughts and feelings, "A newspaper is not meant to convey feelings." This repetitiveness makes it seem like you don't entirely understand the text and shows hesitancy to introduce new ideas. There also isn't much reference to characteristic features.
A03:
For this section, I would score you at a 4/10. You did a decent job analyzing the form of each piece, but beyond that, there wasn't much analysis done. You didn't spend much time talking about the language or structure used in each piece. You also didn't use any quotes to back up your findings. While you do show a great knowledge of the form of a newspaper article, you show little to no understanding of the other two elements. There also isn't much analysis on how the writers' stylistic choices relate to the audience. You discuss how "The audience of an autobiography written by him later in his career is more than likely a fan of Usain Bolt and therefore is already captivated by his story meaning that they will more than willingly read the whole thing" But beyond that nothing much more is said.