LOW MARKS
http://xmltwo.ibo.org/publications/DP/Group7/d_7_textp_tsm_1105_1/audio/Example%2011%20(IOP).mp3
Individual oral presentation -- HIGH
The student produced an interesting presentation. He spoke well, he was coherent. He was, however, brief. The oral presentation lasted less than 10 minutes and as such missed a third of the time. Despite the assured manner of the delivery and the obviously perceptive relationship to both text and performance (transformation) the student needed those extra minutes.
The comments below focus on criterion E, which—as it offers 10 marks as against the 5 each for criteria B, C and D—assumes a preponderant importance. It requires two analytical approaches, firstly to the original text and secondly to the rationalization for the dramatic realization of it.
The student is adept at identifying literary features of the original text; he notes its enigmatic quality, its mystery, the narrative style (variable), the crude imagery, the conjunction of magic realism set against a naturalistic mode of presentation. He notes the pace, rhythm and continuity of the short story and he singles out a quality of timelessness as a primary feature of the story.
He is eloquent about the decisions made in the transforming exercise. The play within the play idea, the introduction of the tutor character, the regretful abandonment of the mute girl, the play with theatrical conventions, all these are noted and have been thought through. He is stilted about his own acting, and seems to struggle for the appropriate words to describe himself on stage. He is rather opaque about the final scene, which succeeds brilliantly on stage but not so brilliantly in his descriptions of it.
It is clear that what is needed here is more than a series of stylistic identifications and coherent rationales for making staging decisions. The criterion descriptor in the highest 9–10 achievement level (which a student of this level must be aiming for) asks for a “persuasive rationale” for the realization. The use of the term persuasive needs to be understood as a call for the student to provide a strong argument for the transformation. This argument can be based on the literary features of the original text and the decisions made to transform these features into a playing style that, while transforming the text, strives to preserve its original quality. It may also enhance that quality by liberating new and exciting dynamics engendered by the possibilities of drama as a different form of literary expression to either poetry or prose.
The presentation is well structured, following a coherent line of development from comments on the original text, through rationales for its realization, through to final evaluations of the performance (the last two minutes of the presentation, focusing on a general evaluation, did not answer any of the three criteria). The student was generally well spoken, more comfortable with literary than theatrical terminology.
The examiner expects “knowledge and understanding” of the original text to be conveyed through an analysis of content and style, in order for a presentation to meet the requirements of the highest achievement level. For knowledge and understanding to be excellent, it is expected that this analysis of content and style of the original text is brought into a coherent and persuasive relationship to the choices made in its realization as drama. There would therefore be a recognizable link between insights into the original text and staging decisions; this would form part of the persuasive argument for the direction the realization has taken, which is expressed with conviction in the rationale.
Individual oral presentation LOW
Criterion C: Presentation and use of language
The presentation was reasonably well structured with clarity in the use of the language, which is helped by a coherent approach to the task. A greater sophistication in her use of both literary and theatrical terminology would have moved the student to the next achievement level. Again, the constrained nature of the presentation with little reference to the “literary features of the original text” and only a very general “critical reflection” on performance makes it difficult for the student to demonstrate an “excellent” level under this criterion.
Criterion D: Critical reflection
The critical reflection made general points about lighting (“spotlight to create a tone”), voice (“kind of bubbly”) and physical posture (“body language a big part of the role”). At this level of generality, it is difficult to go beyond the third achievement level “adequate critical reflection”, but the remarks on staging (with the reference to the triangle of chairs and the way staging reflects the relationships that are key to the plot) was a lot better and more coherent. Therefore, the student manages to get to an “adequate” level in her reflections. She tends to speak a little too much about other actors and again is reluctant to use “I” rather than “we”. Had she done so, her critical reflection could have been more focused and specific.
Criterion E: Knowledge and understanding of the literary features of the original text and rationale for its realization
The student certainly understood the plot of the original text and spent some time in matching that plot to the resulting performance. She also remarks on “foreshadowing”, which is helpful, and goes into some detail about the ploy of the letter. However, she does not recognize this as a rather creaky device. She establishes an effective relationship between the denouement of the story and the staging of the final scene in the transformed piece. She makes some play with the generic names chosen, but has little more to offer. The original text may not have been particularly rich in literary features—this is an important issue for groups attempting this task. The richer the text is in literary features for transformation, the greater the chance students will have to fulfill the requirements of criterion E. The rationale for the transformation was implied but not explored explicitly, so a certain benefit of the doubt was given to the student here.
No comments:
Post a Comment