2012: Generally: In better responses, candidates stated a clear conceptual thesis in their introduction, and continued to develop and sustain that thesis with detailed and judiciously selected textual analysis and evaluation. In these responses, candidates showed evidence of extensive research into the historical periods and ways of thinking, which helped communicate a deep understanding of the historical periods and how composers provided diverse perspectives on those times and paradigms. The responses, when discussing the diverse perspectives present in the texts, often reflected on how textual forms and features were shaped by, and were a response to, the period and its ways of thinking. Some of these better responses integrated discussion of theorists and critics to support contextual understanding that provided a spine for the argument being developed. In better responses, candidates also analysed and evaluated their texts in the light of the module and elective in a detailed and sustained fashion. These candidates highlighted elements of the texts that demonstrated an interaction with historical ways of thinking, as well as knowledge of the relationship between textual features and meaning. Their responses explored a variety of sections from the prescribed texts and, when discussing the work of a poet or short story composer, often explored a common conceptual thread between the chosen two poems or short stories that helped to strengthen the argument being made. In these responses, candidates also demonstrated extensive and apt usage of texts of their own choosing, integrating discussion of those texts and their features into the argument. In weaker responses, candidates answered with a lack of balance in their exploration of the provided statement. They often did not consider the provided statement, or gave a superficial consideration that was not sustained through the response. Some candidates wrote at length about the historical period, using the texts more as a support for the argument rather than analysing them in detail. Other candidates demonstrated an understanding of the texts without the necessary reference to the ways of thinking in the historical period. They often analysed texts in isolation, rather than as part of a synthesised whole discussion. These candidates used prescribed texts and texts of their own choosing in a limited fashion. In some weaker responses, candidates featured texts of their own choosing that limited the ability of the students to support an in-depth discussion of the ways of thinking in the historical periods of the electives. Specifically: In better responses, candidates demonstrated a detailed understanding of the relationship of texts produced as a part of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century Romanticism movement with the ways of thinking in the historical period. There were often clear references made to how texts reflected the shift from Enlightenment and Augustan thinking, as well as to distinct periods within the movement. In better responses, candidates made discerning use of suitable related texts from a range of times, contexts and media that reflected the ways of thinking of the historical period of the elective. In weaker responses, candidates often relied on explaining how individual elements of Romanticism, such as a belief in Imagination or Nature, were reflected in the texts, rather than a broader view of the ways of thinking present in the historical period. In many weaker responses, there were also references to texts of the students’ own choosing that did not reflect or engage with the values present in the Romantic period as defined in the elective’s rubric. 2011: Generally: Candidates used the key terms of the questions and articulated a clear understanding of the key paradigms present in each elective. They successfully used the statements in order to execute sophisticated arguments about the relationship between
