Blog 1
Question 1 A
The Jamaican runner Usain Bolt just ran the 100 meters final and won. The lanes accompanying Bolt were filled with all-star runners like Richard Thompson and teammate Asafa Powell who was the former world record holder of the 100-meter dash.
To recount the run it started off with runner Richard Thompson having an inhuman start bursting off the block taking the initial lead. This seemingly threw Bolt for a loop having a bad fourth step, but with a quick recovery, it was still anyone’s race… That was until Bolt’s momentum started building with his longer strides. He quickly took the lead from Thompson gaining a clear vision of the line.
And in entertaining fashion with the whole group still bunched in the back, Bolt pulled ahead taking a look over his shoulder and it dawns on him; that he would win this race. Bolt still close to ten meters from the line threw his hands up in the air and pounding on his chest. Just like that, the race was over with Bolt crossing the line in style.
Question 1 B
In the news report (Text A) the article has short paragraphs and has is written formally with minimal use of pronouns to make sure specificity in information is accurate. It is written to recount the events of the run in chronological order, we can tell with the use of “Inhuman start” then to “It was still anyone’s race… That was until…” The last paragraph is about the finish of the race. The report was focused around Usain Bolt due to him being the winner and the source of what would be reported about most. The writer included the location, subject, and time. The author made a few assumptions which could be from bias or from unsure observation. This was shown when the author wrote “This seemingly…” which shows the obscurity of their observation. However, this also could have been for a slightly entertaining sense as the following sentence transitioned by saying “That was until…” showing a relationship between the two sentences.
This differs heavily from the autobiographical text where the entirety of the piece begins with the onamonapia writing “Bang!” This is not the only time that onamonapia was used. Furthermore, the informality continues with lexical fields including words such as “Wow!” and “...yo…” These phrases would be found in informal pieces of writing. As for the structure of the writing, it is sort of all over the place. There are some patterns that we can depict, however. For example, in each paragraph of longer length, it is usually due to the paragraph being a recount of the events from the author's point of view. There were also paragraphs that were italicized in order to depict inner thoughts. This idea is furthered by the rhetorical questions asked in most of those paragraphs like “How did he do that?” When the author isn’t talking to anyone specifically implying that they are speaking to their selves.
This consistency is much different than Text A since Text A had small paragraphs and only that. Even though the patterns of the paragraphs in Text B, are still scattered throughout, the only connection making them recognizable in context is the chronology they are written from. Like Text A, Text B also makes little use of pronouns, with most recounts being specific. This would make sense since the author would remember these stories with a sense of added personality. When it comes to point of view between these pieces of writing. Text A is in the second person, a spectator of the race, making slight assumptions based on external observation. Whereas Text B is written from the first-person point of view. Including the use of “I” often in the writing.
Hello John, In part A you did you did well. Your structure is great with the short paragraphs and your third person perspective making it look like a news article. Your content is also good and I like how the word "inhuman" to describe the start. You showed a good understanding of the text but I think it would have been beneficial if you brought up the names of the other sprinters. You spoke about Bolt a a lot and I feel like the perspective should show less of a bias towards one racer. However, your overall tone is relevant and I like the use of "..." it adds suspense.(8 marks) In part B you also did great. To start, you referenced your text and the other text which shows your understanding. I liked the way you mention the onomatopoetic expression. Your language was good and I liked how you mentioned word choice. You compared everything and did a great analysis.(15 marks)
ReplyDeleteHi John,
ReplyDelete1A)
I feel this is where you did a wonderful job. Here, you showed a detailed understanding of the text and had effective references to characteristic features, such as when you discussed Usain Bolt’s rough start or when you discussed his flashy finish. Your examples from the text were placed perfectly within your paragraphs, and helped strengthen the context portion of effective references. In terms of the AO1 rubric, I would award you with 4 marks.
Your ability to write effectively, creatively, accurately and appropriately were all shown through writing in your newspaper article. The structure alone was well-organized, and had a great flow to the article. One thing, however, is the lack of a headline. The most important aspect of a newspaper article is the headline, as it grabs the reader (or potential reader’s) attention. Besides this, I believe that you showed effective expression and discussed content that was relevant to the audience and purpose. In terms of the AO2 rubric, I would award you 4 marks as well.
1B)
I really liked how you got straight to the point in response B, this allowed you to communicate your ideas in a better fashion than most others have. With regards to the AO1 rubric, I would argue that you had a sophisticated understanding of both your newspaper article, and Usain Bolt’s autobiography. Your ability to differentiate and compare the two were highly effective in your writing. Once again, here you presented insightful reference to characteristic features of both texts, as you discussed situations where Usain Bolt used onomatopoeia and other similar lexis. For this rubric, I would award you the 5 marks.
When it came to analysis, you did just as good. Referencing the AO3 rubric, I believe that you had detailed comparative analyses of elements of form, structure, and language. This can be seen in the second paragraph of response B, when you discuss structure and even bring up rhetorical questions that were asked by Usain Bolt. Similarly, this falls under the category of having a detailed understanding of how the writers’ stylistic choices relate to the audience and shape meaning. This can be seen when you bring up Usain Bolt’s phrases like ‘Yo.’ For rubric AO3, I would award you with 8 marks.
-Hor