IB Docs (2) Team
Paper 1: Sample Response 11 (Justin Gatlin)
This is the third of four sample Paper 1 exemplars based on an online article from The Sun. The very first post in this series explains the entire exam process in detail. To summarize that process in one sentence, students wrote about an old IB Paper 1 from the "old" course using this guiding question: How does the author use language to characterize Justin Gatlin?
You'll notice that this exemplar is different from the first two samples, found here and here. Those two previous exemplars were excellent and very good, respectively. They were published on the site to demonstrate to students the difference between scoring top marks in criterion A (five out of five) versus getting four out of five. There's a very slight difference, but there's enough contrast between those two examplars for students to grasp what's required to hit top marks in some criterion.
However, in this exemplar, the student hasn't risen to the level of the other two. And that's okay! Our job as Language and Literature teachers is to meet students where they are at so we can support them to reach their full potential. This examplar also gives us a wonderful opportunity to talk about doing what the assessment task requires while also not excelling at it. By comparing and constrasting this examplar with the other two, students will have a fuller understanding of the expectations fo the assessment, a fuller understanding of how to achieve higher marks, and a fuller understanding of what good writing looks like.
Sample Guided Textual Analysis
Guided Textual Analysis Sample Response 11 Justin Gatlin
Guiding Question: How does the author use language to characterize Justin Gatlin?
Paper 1: Student Response (Justin Gatlin)
Paper 1: Sample Response 11 (Justin Gatlin)
Guiding question: How does the author use language to characterize Justin Gatlin?
The online article titled: “GAT-CRASH Usain Bolt sunk as drugs cheat Justin Gatlin ruins golden goodbye by storming to 100m gold” by ‘The Sun’ is about Justin Gatlin’s win over Usain Bolt in London in 2017. This article is directed towards English speaking sport fans who want to get more information about the event. The author talks about Gatlin’s win as well as Bolt’s mistakes which led to his loss. The author characterizes Gatlin as an uninvited anti-hero who won the race, however, was a tainted champion due to his prior shortcomings of being a cheater.
To begin with, the author characterizes Gatlin as an uninvited guest, an individual who has shown up to an event without an invitation. The author’s use of “gate-crash” portrays to the readers that Gatlin had shown up to this event without an invitation. This makes the reader’s feel like the author is right and further frustrates them which in turn makes them angrier at Gatlin. As well as this, the use of “dismay” depicts the audience’s unwant for Gatlin. Rather than being happy about his win, everybody was shocked and didn’t want this to be the outcome. Gatlin had come to an event where he was not predicted to win: he was much slower and older than Bolt. He had no right be at the race, let alone win it. The author’s use of facts displays the audience’s reaction to Gatlin’s win and characterizes him as an unwanted guest.
The author also characterizes Gatlin as the anti-hero: the villain, the antagonist of the event. The audience’s “booing” shown by the author shows how he was portrayed as the villain. The audience was “venting their fury” at Gatlin which again shows how he was the bad one in the situation. Gatlin, according to the audience, had stolen Bolt’s victory. He had come to a race, where he wasn’t supposed to be and stolen something from the most popular runner. The audience showed their anger and the author used it to characterize Gatlin as an anti-hero.
The author further characterizes Gatlin as a cheater: an individual who is willing to take performance enhancement drugs to advantage himself. Throughout the article, the author displays Gatlin’s drug use. He stated facts: Gatlin was an “American doper” and had been “twice banned” for doping. The result of stating this makes the readers more frustrated and increased their want to see Gatlin gone. Providing details about interviews where “he was greeted with chants of “cheat, cheat, cheat” while he was live on air” provides the reader with more information about how disliked he was and how badly his cheating scandal had affected him. The author also uses “Drugs cheat Justin Gatlin” in the introduction which makes the reader feel like Gatlin is just one thing: a cheater. His determination is not shown, instead, he is only portrayed as a cheat. The author uses the audience’s reactions and their frustration against Gatlin to portray him as a cheat. The readers believe that he could have cheated in this race as well as the author constantly mentions information about his prior cheating events.
Lastly, Gatlin is characterized as a tainted champion: a winner who is hated or unwanted due to prior shortcomings. Gatlin’s use of drugs set a bad reputation around his name. He was disliked by most sports fans and was untrustworthy. Even though Gatlin won the race, he didn’t receive the love and support he deserved: “the fans left him no doubt he shouldn’t as they vented their anger with jeers and abuse.” Gatlin was abused and “booed” for winning a race, which is the opposite of what should have happened. The author’s use of such phrases and facts portrays to the reader how disliked he was. Gatlin’s win had become an opportunity for the haters to show their displeasure and hatred for him. The author, therefore, is able to characterize him as a tainted hero.
To conclude, the author characterizes Gatlin as an uninvited antagonist and a cheater, therefore portraying him as a tainted champion. The author, throughout the online article, states facts and portrays events that took place before, during, and after the race which made him characterize Gatlin in that way. The audience’s constant booing and abuse at Gatlin forced the author to do so. At first, this article seems fair and unbiased, however, as we read along, it is against Gatlin completely. Throughout the article his use of drugs is portrayed in a way that makes him more unlikeable. Although articles should be fair, the readers of this one would argue with the author and be against the world-renowned runner: Justin Gatlin. Gatlin had cheated multiple times in the past, only getting caught twice. No one knows how many times he actually cheated. Gatlin had been caught and banned once; however, that didn’t stop him and he made the same mistake again. The readers believe that making the same mistake twice is not acceptable – no one knows if he cheated in this race as well. The readers believe that he was let off too easily. For a mistake this bad, he should be banned forever and never be allowed to run again. As sports enthusiasts, the readers believe that allowing a cheat to participate in a sports event after being banned twice is bad for the sport: it might make other players to try and advantage themselves in a similar way due to the fact that the punishment isn’t too bad – they could be allowed to participate in a few years again.
Word count: 926
Teacher's Comments
Criterion A: Understanding and interpretation (5 marks)
- To what extent does the student show an understanding of the text? What inferences can the student reasonably make?
- To what extent does the student support their claims with references to the text?
3 out of 5: The student understands the literal meaning of the text – a biased online article about Gatlin’s win. There is also some satisfactory understanding of the implications too. Finally, the references are generally relevant. However, it is too repetitive to score above a 3 here, in both the evidence (quotations) used and the arguments/interpretations being made. It’s not a 2 either and the 3 band is the right “fit” for what the student has produced.
Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation (5 marks)
- How well does the student does the student evaluate the ways in which language and style establish meaning and effect?
3 out of 5: This is not reliant on description and therefore a 2 is not awarded. While there is some description at times, there are more times that the student makes an author focused claim. While it is sometimes in a “this shows” type of manner, it is generally appropriate.
Criterion C: Focus and organisation (5 marks)
- How effectively does the student structure and present their ideas?
- How balanced and focused is the response?
3 out of 5: There is some focus in the analysis. The student focuses on the question and doesn’t stray from that focus. It’s adequately organized in a generally coherent manner. It’s neither below this description (little focus) or above this description (well-organized).
Criterion D: Language (5 marks)
- How clear, varied, and accurate is the student’s language?
- To what extent is the student’s choice of register, style, and terminology appropriate?
3 out of 5: Register and style are mostly appropriate to the task. There’s just too many little errors or clunky sentences with the occasional wrong word (“haters” for example) to go beyond this. A 3 is appropriate here as a 2 is too punatitve for what the student has done.
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn