Paper 1 Question 1
Question 1:
(A): Title: Usain Wins Gold
The 100-meter race in the Olympics is the race that every runner dreams of being in. Living your entire life for this one moment. All of the runners appeared to be locked in and determined with the look of a warrior on their faces. ‘Bang’ went the gun as the runners took off. Richard Thompson got one of the best jumps in Olympic history and pulled ahead of the pack. Bolt had a rough start and looked as if he would have a tough run. Thompson had a great lead and looked like he was going to win the race but all of a sudden, Bolt came out of nowhere and caught up with his long strides and took the lead. He looked over his shoulder to check for the other runners. It was at this moment that you could tell that he knew he won the race. He pounded his chest as all of his emotions came out at the finish line. All of the hard work, countless hours, and dedication to this sport that he had put in his whole life just to succeed in this very moment, and it had all paid off.
(B): My newspaper report was a lot different than what is in the autobiographical extract seen in the article written by Usain Bolt. The reasoning for this is that Usain’s piece is written in the first person while my point of view as a journalist is in the third person. As a journalist, you do not know what is going through a sprinter's mind before a race, or what emotions they are experiencing as they run the race. The form that he used was an autobiography which by definition means a self-written account from one's life. My form was written as an article to go in the sports section which is not similar whatsoever. His information would be more relevant than mine because he actually was the one running in the race while I was there watching and reporting the information.
As far as the structure goes, they also were drastically different from each other, and here is why. Usain, as the writer, tells his story of him winning the race in bunches. This style of writing is necessary for an autobiography because it allows us to see the story in bits and pieces rather than in one big blob of writing. Usain also used onomatopoeia in his writing to show the gunshots and noises he experienced during the race. My structure however was again much different than the structure that was used in the autobiography. In a newspaper, there is not a lot of space to be worked with. There are many other articles, pictures, and reports that are in a newspaper besides the sports article and because of this, the structure of a newspaper has to be very compact and written in one big blob in order to preserve space for other information. This is why the structure was very different.
The language that was used in the autobiography was also much different than mine. Usain talks about how before a race he talks down on himself and even during a race that he will talk a lot of trash in his head. As a journalist, you would never know this information and likely assume that he talks himself up rather than down. He also has the thoughts and feelings that were in his head as he was running. In the text, it states,” Wow! How did he do that?! Now I can’t see where I am in the race…” While in mine the language is not coming from what I am thinking about first handed, but what I am witnessing as a spectator. Because of this, the language that is used in mine is bound to be very different than that used from what was written in the autobiography.
Furthermore, the information that Usain gave to us in the autobiography was much more relevant, emotive, and realistic than mine, but the newspaper article is more meant to inform the people reading as far as what happened while Usain’s is more to tell his story. Overall, there are many differences in the styles of writing but both of them are good in their own unique way.
Hey Shamus,
ReplyDeleteTo start off your newspaper was amazing. One suggestion would be that make sure when you’re writing a newspaper, that you have paragraphs that can make it look easier to read and making it looks nice.
AO1- 3 marks. You had a clear understanding of text and clear reference to characteristic features. You understood the features on how the context of the sentences meant. You had a clear understanding of what the runner(s) felt when they were running down the track. I also liked how you ended part a by saying “it had paid off”, which is touch warming because Bolt practiced really hard on how he got to the place he is right now.
AO2- 3 marks. I really liked how you said “He pounded his chest as all of his emotions came out at the finish line.” This can get the audience’s attention (the fans) on how he felt when he won. This clearly shows expression and how this is relevant to the audience.
Total: 6 marks.
Form- I like how you first started your answer to part b by saying it “was a lot different”. You also used buzz words for form by saying “perspective”, “third person” and “first person” which can get you a higher mark when grading. I just think there was no reason for you to put the definition of an autobiography, since the person grading it already knows what it means.
Structure- Your structure was terrific. I liked how you used the buzz word “onomatopoeia” by explaining the gunshots. I feel like you could’ve added the quotation marks on where in the text it was used for the grader to confirm your thinking. As I’m looking in the marking scheme you used “the used of one sentence paragraphs” of explaining your differences on how long or short both were.
Language- The use of language you described was good. You used quotation marks to back up your statement which is great because that is what people grading your paper want to see. As a suggestion, I just feel like in this category, language, there were so many options to talk about such as the types of verbs, adverbs, nouns, adjectives that were being used in the texts. Over all this was great. Goob job!
AO1- 3 marks.
AO2- 3 marks. (6 marks) Total: 9 marks.
A01
ReplyDeleteHey shamus, I really liked your newspaper article and I thought that it was super interesting and didn't get boring to read. I would suggest to space your article out and make sure its not just one big paragraph to make it easier to read and more visually appealing to the eye. Somethings that you did good were understanding the text very well and describing it, but I feel like you didn't really reference the features and more copied the autobiography's words but rephrased. I would give you 3 points on this part.
A02 For this one, I would give you a score of 4 points where you expressed yourself well and had good, interesting content that sparked my interest as I was reading it and it didn't get repetitive, for example I like when you use words like all of the hard work... just to succeed in this very moment. And I feel like it really sums up the excitement of winning the race and how meaningful it is.
B
A01
for this section I would give you a score of 3 because you did show understanding of the differing texts and you did refer to the things that differed in them, for example you said " Usain’s piece is written in the first person while my point of view as a journalist is in the third person. As a journalist, you do not know what is going through a sprinter's mind before a race, or what emotions they are experiencing as they run the race. " Which shows that you really understand the key differences between both writing styles
A03
for a03 I would give you a score of 3, you clearly sectioned each element into its own paragraph, explained it with plenty of reasoning, and analyzed everything thoroughly, you also used plenty of keywords that aice would like and I feel like you did this section really good, congrats. Overall I think that you did a great job but like everyone else you need some refining to do.
A) AO1: I give your understanding of the text a four. I would remove the times you mention that they work their whole lives for that one moment since they compete in races all the time and that expression will make the reader think this is their only chance to compete/win. However, I do understand the thought process and that you were trying to stress the importance of this race. Overall it is clear you understood the text.
ReplyDeleteAO2: I give your writing a four. I think you could make it flow better by reading it all together and analyzing how it sounds. Overall, you understood the appropriate tone for a reporter to present the information in, which was great.
B). AO1: I give you a 3. Your understanding was pretty good. However, I disagree with your point that there is no way for you know what is going through his head because usually reporters interview the athletes, so you could have written about first accounts from him. Your writing was easy to read and neat so good job!
AO3: For this section I give you a 8/10. Your writing was organized, easy to read, and interesting. All you need is a few tweaks and you'll be good.