1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. 2011 HSC Exam papers
5. 2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Drama

2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Drama

Contents

• Introduction
• Practical examination
• Submitted projects
• Written examination

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Drama. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2011 Higher School Certificate examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.

This document should be read along with the relevant syllabus, the 2011 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Drama.

General comments

Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may write questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating their knowledge, understanding and skills developed through studying the course.

Candidates need to be familiar with the Board's Glossary of Key Words, which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with, or contain, any key word from the glossary. Questions such as 'how?', 'why?' or 'to what extent?' may be asked, and verbs that are not included in the glossary may be used, such as 'design', 'translate' or 'list'.

Practical examination

Group performance

The group performance must be an entirely original group-devised piece of theatre. Class work on the group performance should not begin before the commencement of Term 2 in the HSC year. Each performer in the group performance is marked individually. It is important for examiners to be able to differentiate between candidates. If all candidates are wearing similar costumes, a distinguishing ribbon or other indicator should be worn. Live performance is a dynamic medium. Candidates should perform their piece for an audience before the examination to ensure they are aware of audience responses to their work and that their work when performed with audience reaction, will not run over time and be stopped. This is also important to ensure that the intention and dramatic meaning of the performance is clear to an audience.

Better group performances:

• presented a clear and fully developed concept derived from a sophisticated understanding of explored and thoroughly researched ideas
• engaged the audience powerfully throughout the performance
• employed an effective structure that supported a coherent theatrical journey
• demonstrated a unity of purpose, by which each theatrical moment contributed to the meaning of the piece
• performed as a highly polished ensemble with sophisticated manipulation and control of the elements of drama (eg focus, tension, symbol, space and mood)
• demonstrated a sophisticated understanding and manipulation of performance conventions and the techniques appropriate to the style of the piece
• created fully defined and sustained role(s)/character(s) with a physical, psychological and emotional truth, which demonstrated clarity of intention and motivating action
• presented defined characters/role relationships that developed and realised complete character journeys.

Weaker group performances:

• presented an incoherent and/or superficial performance with unexplored ideas in underdeveloped scenes
• demonstrated a lack of understanding of dramatic structure by presenting disconnected and often unrelated scenes with awkward, unmotivated and superficial transitions (eg blackouts or entrances and exits) that halted the action and engagement for the audience
• demonstrated minimal reference to the chosen style, the meaning of the piece or character/role being performed
• created character(s) or role(s) that lacked clarity in identity and motivation, often displaying little physicality and a one-dimensional life that changed little throughout the piece
• performed characters that were not dynamic and lacked energy, who engaged in limited interaction with other characters/roles and had an inconsistent ability to work as an ensemble
• created performances lacking integrity because of their over-reliance on sets, props, music, sound or lighting special effects, exits and entrances, or other production elements.

Individual project: performance

The individual performance is a complete theatrical statement for the stage. If using material not originally intended for theatre, candidates need to be mindful that the piece is carefully crafted to satisfy the needs of a stage performance. Candidates should be careful of an over-reliance on song, dance or music unless it is integral to the meaning and theatricality of the performance. Self-devised individual performances must be carefully structured to develop a fully realised character with a clear character journey and dramatic shape. Candidates who read scripts or improvise pieces are unlikely to satisfy the criteria for the examination.

In better individual performances, candidates:

• presented well-rehearsed, complete and clear theatrical journeys for their characters, derived from a thorough action/objective analysis of the text
• demonstrated an understanding of the role of the audience in the performance and manipulated that relationship purposefully
• performed using a clear style, demonstrating an understanding of the conventions of that style
• demonstrated an exemplary ability to realise their characters in each moment with absolute conviction, clarity and truth
• presented a dynamic character journey of intensity with subtly defined complexities
• utilised sophisticated and effective choices that employed dramatic elements such as rhythm, pace, timing, mood, atmosphere and dramatic tension
• selected pieces that suited the abilities and strengths of the candidates.

In weaker individual performances, candidates:

• presented scripts with little theatricality, which were often simplistic and without a clear or complete theatrical shape or structure
• performed scripts that demonstrated minimal or no analysis by the candidates in terms of their dramatic elements, including language, rhythms, moments and turning points
• gave performances that ran under or over the allocated time
• selected pieces that did not allow the strengths of the candidate to be evident
• demonstrated little or no awareness of the audience
• created performances where decisions of style were not sustained or where material from different mediums, such as film or television, were presented without alteration to suit a theatrical performance
• were heavily reliant on production elements, eg music, lighting effects and props
• lacked spatial awareness, which resulted in unmotivated movement, aimless wandering or inappropriate use of the space
• presented one-dimensional, unmotivated characters with little internal or external energy or belief.

Submitted projects

Individual project: critical analysis

Portfolio of theatre criticism

Projects in this area critiqued a diverse range of theatrical productions and exhibited a clear knowledge and understanding of the purpose of theatre criticism. Candidates undertaking this project are encouraged to select productions for review that allow them to articulate their response to the manipulation of theatrical elements to create dramatic meaning. Candidates are encouraged not to narrow their focus in terms of dramatic style or form. While candidates are encouraged to read professional reviews and supporting material, such as promotional material, they are reminded that their theatre reviews must be their own work and not plagiarised, reworked or paraphrased from such sources. The logbook is an effective tool to demonstrate the originality of the candidate's work.

In better projects, candidates:

• identified, selected and evaluated how particular theatrical elements (which may have included the play's ideas, directorial choices, acting, performance style, set, costume, lighting or sound design) created dramatic meaning for the audience
• supported, substantiated and justified evaluations with specific reference to key moments from the performance viewed
• integrated research and theatrical knowledge in producing engaging and sophisticated reviews with flair, control and, at times, wit, using an appropriate and authoritative reviewer's voice.

In weaker projects, candidates:

• recounted performances, retold the play's plot or relied on a literary discussion of the play – these projects often lacked evidence of analysis or research, or were of insufficient length
• made broad generalisations and often provided simplistic, hyperbolic or inappropriate justification for their evaluations
• did not create an appropriate reviewer's voice, control the language, style or the structure of the project.

Applied research project

Candidates are encouraged to focus on developing a coherent and effective hypothesis from the question posed by their extensive initial research, demonstrating insight into an area directly related to drama and/or theatre. Candidates must submit projects that are entirely their own work, and accurate and of the correct length when citing references and sources. Additionally, logbooks should contain copies of research material, annotations, notes and rough drafts of the project.

In better projects, candidates:

• demonstrated a breadth and depth of initial research that led to a hypothesis that was original, focused and manageable
• sourced, analysed and synthesised a substantial range of resources and effective research, using primary and secondary sources
• demonstrated sophistication, confidence and authority in the use of language, style and structure.

In weaker projects, candidates:

• presented an inappropriate, broad or unmanageable hypothesis that was difficult to research and/or prove
• relied on irrelevant, minimal, incomplete or inappropriate data or research that often did not substantiate the hypothesis
• presented projects that lacked attention to detail, such as formatting, editing, footnoting and proofreading.

Director's folio

Candidates should focus on developing an understanding of the function of the director and the process of analysing a play from a director's perspective. They should carefully read and adhere to the requirements of this project as specified in the syllabus. Candidates need to be able to visualise their production of the play on stage, as opposed to examining the literary or thematic merits of the script. They are encouraged to work with a play they appreciate and identify with, and for which they can develop a practical directorial vision/concept.

In better projects, candidates:

• developed and presented directors' visions that were effective, practical and inspired by the play rather than imposed on the play
• demonstrated extensive knowledge and understanding of the play's ideas, dramatic elements, style and staging demands by producing a highly effective realisation on stage
• demonstrated a sophisticated awareness of how elements of drama can be manipulated through directorial and design choices to create engaging theatre
• clearly articulated the intended audience experience through all areas of this project and used effective rehearsal techniques with actors to support this intention.

In weaker projects, candidates:

• demonstrated a superficial engagement with the play and presented an undeveloped, inappropriate, impractical or imposed directorial concept that may have disregarded the historical, social and political context and stylistic demands of the play
• lacked an understanding of the practicalities of staging the production and approached the project in a literary manner (by focusing on themes and character profiles), rather than demonstrating how dramatic and theatrical techniques could be used to realise this concept on stage
• provided inappropriate or impractical design concepts that may not have been supported by the directorial concept of the play
• demonstrated a limited understanding of intended audience experience or rehearsal techniques.

Individual project: design

Lighting

In better projects, candidates:

• presented an insightful concept for their selected play, deliberately manipulating audience engagement through highly appropriate atmosphere and mood choices that transported the audience into a world appropriate to the play
• presented a unified design that was clearly evident in all aspects of the work, from the candidate's vision for the lighting rig plan, choices and colours on the rigging sheets, articulated time cues and accurate, easy-to-follow running script
• presented well-plotted cues that demonstrated, through the running script, cue sheets and overlays, and clear choices in establishing the dramatic action, mood and setting of the chosen scenes
• submitted support material that demonstrated clear links between the intended lighting states and the equipment selected to deliver these design choices.

In weaker projects, candidates:

• presented a poorly articulated directorial vision of lighting design choices for the chosen play
• made inappropriate and/or impractical technical choices when selecting lanterns (especially regarding the strength of chosen lights to cover key staging requirements), rigging positions, angle and direction, circuit loads and channel allocations
• demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding appropriateness of colour choices and/or employed overly simplified symbolic colour gels without taking into account the mixing of colour on stage
• used a few varied lights as a substitute for a full, well-justified rig that would leave areas of the stage in darkness, or presented their designs using simple washes or strong colour. This misunderstanding of lighting conventions for a play sometimes culminated in a 'rock eisteddfod dance spectacular' solution that was highly inappropriate for the selected scenes of the play.

Costume

Candidates are advised to present their work flat – not rolled – and to avoid the use of perspex or glass. Wooden frames are also not acceptable.

Candidates are reminded of the requirements of the project, especially the requirement to present four preliminary drawings for other characters and the minimum and maximum rendering size.

In better projects, candidates:

• presented a clear vision of the chosen play as a theatrical performance
• conveyed their vision effectively so that it could be visualised on stage
• understood the individual costume requirements of each character within an overall concept
• used colour and texture effectively to enhance the themes and reflect the mood of the chosen play
• provided strong support material that was consistent with their designs and reflected the fabric and texture shown in their projects
• presented their designs clearly and allowed the renderings to 'speak for themselves'
• chose to design costumes for characters that reflected the central themes of the play
• displayed evidence of a thorough and well-researched design process
• chose rendering techniques that were appropriately theatrical
• showed the journey of the play through their selection of characters and scenes.

In weaker projects, candidates:

• presented work that was undersized and/or incomplete
• presented projects that were not theatrical and presented as 'fashion design'
• presented projects that contained an inappropriate selection of characters and/or scenes that did not reflect the journeys of the chosen play
• lacked a cohesive concepts, or imposed a concept rather than developing one from a study of the play
• did not present FOUR preliminary sketches for characters in addition to those they had rendered
• did not present evidence of reading and responding to the set plays at HSC level
• did not provide adequate support material
• did not use fabric swatches, or used fabric swatches that did not connect with their renderings
• did not differentiate between the various characters in the play, or ignored aspects of status and context
• did not take into account the needs of, and requirements for, actors wearing the costumes.

Promotion and program

General comments

Candidates should keep in mind that this project reflects the journey of a potential audience member who is persuaded and informed by the marketing and publicity materials generated by the theatre company and other media. By viewing the project, we should feel excited by this fictitious production and want to see it on the stage. It is not sufficient to have the director tell us they are excited about doing the text. Candidates should also remember that a project that has unity or a unified concept does not just repeat every image across the items without making clear choices. In addition, the casting of an 'actor' who is used in photographic images (eg the poster) to represent a character from the text is important.

In better projects, candidates:

• demonstrated an insightful directorial vision that captured the atmosphere of the world of the play on stage, which was clearly communicated through visual design choices carried through the director's notes and media feature story
• were able to take the audience on a carefully sequenced and believable marketing/publicity journey, starting with the poster, enhanced by the flyer image and written copy, strengthened by the media feature story, and fully completed by the program
• presented a unified design for their poster, flyer and program, with subtle variations in their visual selections that demonstrated a clear design vision and insightful interpretation of the chosen set text
• demonstrated layers of meaning (using subtle and strong imagery)
• achieved a balance between aesthetics and functionality
• used appropriate 'actors' who were the right gender and age for characters in the play, and costuming that was convincing for the image/concept. The pose and setting of the photographic image also had integrity and belief
• demonstrated a well-researched knowledge of the world of the play and a thorough knowledge of the chosen theatre company's profile to appeal to an appropriate target audience
• used appropriate and current chosen theatre company branding
• demonstrated flair in the written material, making sophisticated language choices, incorporating appropriate sales and/or marketing language to promote and attract potential audiences
• understood the chosen theatre company's profile and demonstrated this implicitly throughout the project
• demonstrated a clear and appropriate use of the 'voice' of the chosen director in the program's Director's Notes
• demonstrated attention to detail in the program, taking the reader on a journey on each page through the manipulation of colours, images and layout
• presented images of cast and crew in the program that were appropriate to the theatre company profile, the chosen play and selected character(s)
• presented only one copy of the program and flyer for marking in their appropriate format (eg program folded and not stuck page by page, flyer printed or stuck back to back), demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of the function for audiences.

In weaker projects, candidates:

• presented a limited design vision, displaying a limited knowledge of the chosen set text and the practical role of designing promotional material in engaging the target audience
• used multiple simplistic, cluttered, clichéd images and/or images from past productions without manipulating them to present a unified directorial vision for the production, often making visual choices based only on the title of the play rather than a well-researched directorial vision
• included inappropriate visual and written choices that reflected little understanding of the world of the play, their chosen theatre company and the intended target audience
• demonstrated a lack of understanding of the purpose of each element of the project and/or provided incomplete or minimal written material, often tending to review, rather than promote, the play
• lacked an understanding of the profile of the chosen established theatre company and its stylistic promotional approach
• demonstrated unrealistic and inconsistent images of cast and crew in the program that were inappropriate to the theatre company profile, the chosen play and selected character(s)
• did not construct a sequential order of material in the program providing a clear journey through the production. Candidates should carefully research the sequence of items in a program and use the format of the chosen theatre company as a guide, eg the cast list of characters would not be on the back page
• were superficial in their choice of play for the project, making choices based on shorter length or subject matter without consideration of the themes and issues in the play that needed to be carefully dealt with
• used large images and text of poor resolution on the poster/flyer making it difficult for the viewer to read the title of the play or clearly see what the image was. This is often a result of pixelation when images are blown up
• did not present the program or flyer in the appropriate form (eg a flat unbound program does not function appropriately)
• presented a general design concept rather than a director's concept
• repeated written material across all areas
• used a theatre company media release or a review as the media feature story.

Set

In better projects, candidates:

• presented a sophisticated concept for their chosen play, which evoked a clear theatrical experience through highly appropriate design/visual choices in the context of their chosen theatre
• constructed sets that supported the dramatic action, mood and setting of the chosen scene, while still considering the whole world of the play and later scene changes. These were clearly documented and often showed lighting states of key dramatic moments in the play
• selected well-chosen, appropriate building materials to support their concepts
• submitted support material with clear floor plans and scene changes, which included detailed prop placement, a 1:25 scaled figure and sightlines for the audience, and a scene breakdown
• used the elements of drama, such as space, mood and atmosphere, to create tension in all their design choices
• understood the form and style of their plays, and used space and image appropriately
• demonstrated a strong understanding of how proxemics could be used in their sets and how a director could use them for status, time and relationships
• understood that the model box and descriptions that form this project are intended to communicate to a theatre workshop department, actors and a director
• realised the logistics of the whole play, such as OH&S, exits and entrances
• designed their sets in the context of a specific theatre with special consideration paid to the actor–audience relationship and sightlines
• completed sturdy and well-finished set models that fulfilled all the project's requirements, especially with regard to scale, and had all components of the project clearly labelled.

In weaker projects, candidates:

• presented an isolated scene without providing a clear intention for the use of the stage space to create a theatrical experience appropriate to the world of the play
• imposed a design that was not supported by the ideas and/or issues in the play or the play's style
• did not consider the manipulation of the actor–audience relationship in the location of key playing areas
• did not consider the practicalities of the set within the space of the theatre
• created dioramas rather than sets, indicating a lack of understanding of theatrical context
• gave floor plans that did not provide sightlines (specifically from the audience's perspective) of stage properties within the space
• made poor choices in the selection of construction materials that did not clearly communicate what they imagined the stage design to be, eg pencil colouring to suggest dirt or road rather than using a textured surface
• lacked detail in their documentation, such as measurements, descriptions of where the action for each scene would take place and how set pieces would be moved
• did not choose a mode of presenting their design that was appropriate to their skills, eg choosing to build a model set when computer-aided design may have been a stronger or more appropriate choice for their skills
• demonstrated minimal ability to realise a set designed for the practicalities of performance, eg lacking an actor entrance and exit space
• used models that were not constructed to a 1:25 scale and made of inappropriate materials, demonstrating an insufficient awareness of colour and texture
• did not check the project specifications, which stated that they were NOT to use dangerous materials when constructing a model
• did not include the CD as well as any print-outs of the set design when submitting a computer-generated design.

Individual project: scriptwriting

General comments

Candidates are reminded that they are writing for actors as well as a director and that, ultimately, their objective is to create an engaging live theatrical experience for an audience. To this end, candidates are encouraged to workshop their play in order to refine and enrich the theatricality of their script.

Similarly, candidates are encouraged to experiment with a wide range of styles and dramatic conventions in the realisation of their dramatic vision. Originality of concept can be attained by presenting a new or individual take on universal themes or concepts. Candidates are encouraged to find their own individual voice while using style and conventions in a coherent and controlled way. To support this exploration of their world, candidates are encouraged to read widely and research their idea as part of the creative process. Sustained audience engagement is achieved through a sophisticated knowledge and manipulation of ideas and theatrical moments.

In better projects, candidates:

• demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the scriptwriting process and product, clearly engaging the audience in an authentic and believable theatrical experience according to their chosen style
• developed a sustained theatrical vision, creating a coherent world and an engaging journey for the characters and for the audience
• manipulated dramatic action with flair and precision, displaying both control and insight in the use of mood, rhythm, tension and, appropriate to style, narrative resolution
• displayed a sophisticated use of language to create visual and verbal images, and appropriate and distinct character voices and relationships
• clearly wrote for the stage, taking advantage of and manipulating the unique qualities of live performance, and appropriately manipulating production elements, technical aspects and the practicalities of acting.

In weaker projects, candidates:

• submitted projects that lacked structural and/or thematic complexity and/or coherence
• presented scripts that contained dramatic action lacking in direction and/or resolution, paying insufficient attention to the needs of the audience, the actors or director, and that contained action hindered by poor transitions and impractical stage requirements (such as restriking of the set and costume changes)
• presented concepts, plots, characterisation and/or scene structures that were more suitable for television or film productions than live theatre, and that were essentially screenplays that had been ineffectively and superficially modified for the stage
• made an overuse of narrators, voice-overs and/or off-stage action, technical effects, and set and/or prop changes, which adversely affected audience engagement
• dealt with issues, concepts or topics in an unoriginal or overly derivative manner, and in a manner which did not reflect the student's individual voice
• did not follow the specified conventions of layout, formatting, etc, suggesting a lack of careful editing and proofreading.

Individual project: video drama

Candidates must remember that in this project area they are creating stories for the screen. It is essential that they develop and structure a dramatic narrative that can be communicated through the manipulation of the dramatic elements and deliberate use of the conventions of visual language.

Candidates are reminded that a dramatic narrative in this project area is a series of events driven by characters and linked through cause and effect to engage the viewer in a coherent journey.

The best projects demonstrated the candidates' considerable skill at telling their stories through the framed mise-en-scene. These candidates used visual language to invite us into the world of the characters and, through their careful shot selection, positioned the audience to empathise and build meaning from the images.

In better projects, candidates:

• had a clear understanding of the story they wanted to tell and where the audience was placed in relation to that story
• had an understanding of the conventions and screen writing demands of a short film
• had control of the elements of drama (including character, tension, focus, mood, pace, time, space, and symbol) in the narrative
• had an understanding of mise-en-scene, paid attention to detail, and made choices about everything the camera saw, eg location, costume, casting and lighting
• were able to relate the story/narrative using images – the visual elements supported the dramatic narrative
• directed actors who had some skill and were believable in their roles
• carefully controlled camera shots to reveal and create dramatic meaning
• used a tripod where appropriate
• used post-production elements to enhance and layer meaning
• had control of the pace and timing of the film in the editing process
• used music skilfully to enhance the dramatic meaning, and not to drive the narrative.

In weaker projects, candidates:

• presented an unclear dramatic narrative or relied on music and lyrics to drive the narrative
• displayed little or no control of the elements of drama (including character, tension, focus, mood, pace, time, space and symbol)
• demonstrated poor understanding of the conventions and screenwriting demands of a short film
• created derivative works based on recent television programming
• used the camera as a recording device without exercising control of shot size, length and angle
• demonstrated an over-reliance on wide shots
• used hand-held camera shots without a clear dramatic purpose
• shot footage that was out of focus or difficult to see due to poor lighting
• recorded poor quality live sound
• paid little or no attention to the mise-en-scene
• made inappropriate choices with regard to casting or used actors with little or no dramatic skill
• used a collage of shots and images without any clear dramatic purpose, 'stock' footage, or relied on still photographs to create a slide show
• demonstrated an over-reliance on special effects in post-production, leading to poor image quality or over-used effects in editing that did not contribute to the meaning of the film
• used editing to merely link scenes without exercising control of pace and timing to build tension
• had poor control of sound levels in post-production, with live sound and added music being set at very different volume levels
• relied on computer-based templates to package their films without regard for the content of the films.

Written examination

General Comments

Candidates are reminded that practical experiences should inform their understanding and should be used in their HSC written responses to show a personal response rather than a purely literary one.

In the best responses in the written examination, candidates synthesised workshop experiences, analysis of the plays, and real or imagined productions into well-structured and articulated visions of the plays they had studied. They demonstrated an insightful understanding of the texts and their context, which they could articulate in reference to how the plays might be staged. They used appropriate theatrical terminology in their analysis and/or discussion and approached the staging of the plays from the perspectives of varied practitioners, such as actors, directors and designers, and an audience.

In weaker responses, candidates presented literary responses with few or no references to in-class workshop experiences and/or productions seen or imagined and did not relate their answer to the question asked. They displayed a superficial appreciation and understanding of dramatic forms, performance styles, conventions and techniques. They often relied on formulaic or prepared responses that sometimes employed key terms of previous HSC questions as the basis for the response.

Section I – Australian Drama and Theatre

Question 1

In better responses, candidates:

• addressed the key terms of the question, such as ideas and images, articulating how these ideas and images were realised dramatically in the pictured space
• demonstrated a thoughtful understanding and appreciation of the dramatic forms, performance styles, techniques and conventions particular to each play
• synthesised workshop experiences, analysis of the plays, and real or imagined productions into a well-structured and articulated vision of the plays in the pictured space
• presented their discussion in a structured and coherent manner
• used appropriate theatrical terminology in their analysis and/or discussion
• approached the staging of the plays from the perspectives of varied practitioners, such as actors, directors and designers, and an audience.

In weaker responses, candidates:

• did not specifically address the key expectation of the question in terms of how ideas and images might be presented in the theatre space
• described (real or imagined) workshop or performance experiences simplistically, often with tenuous relevance to the question
• displayed a superficial appreciation and understanding of dramatic forms, performance styles, conventions and techniques
• did not make a clear connection between the examples of staging and the ideas in the plays studied
• demonstrated superficial and/or inaccurate knowledge of the dramatic action of the plays
• listed themes and character descriptions or relied on recount of plot
• did not address both texts equally
• were too colloquial in their style.

Section II – Studies in Drama and Theatre

Question 2 – Tragedy

• addressed the question explicitly, identifying and interpreting the 'tragic vision' for a contemporary audience
• provided an insightful, balanced and thorough discussion of both plays
• demonstrated a vivid sense of the plays on stage
• used relevant and staged examples.

In weaker responses, candidates:

• wrote of the historical background of tragedy without linking this to the question
• wrote generally about tragedy, listing various terms, such as catharsis and hubris, but ignored the 'tragic vision'
• imposed an inappropriate concept on the play with suggestions that sometimes included changing the text rather than the staging
• retold the storylines or explored the history of Greek theatre.

Question 3 – Irish Drama

In stronger responses, candidates:

• addressed the key terms of the question directly, articulating how characters in Irish drama can be viewed as individuals rather than stereotypes and supported this view, or argued that they were stereotypes and offered strong supporting examples
• demonstrated an insightful understanding of the texts and their context and could articulate this in reference to how the characters in the plays might be staged
• developed a coherent and insightful argument that was supported by equal treatment of both plays
• supported their response with relevant integrated evidence from workshops, stage productions and hypothetical staging.

In weaker responses, candidates:

• gave accounts of the historical and socioeconomic background of Irish drama and used these to make vague or inaccurate value judgements about the Irish
• largely ignored the requirements of the question to look at how the characters are individuals, not stereotypes of a nation
• relied on discussing plot rather than individual characters explicitly and how they might be portrayed on the stage
• gave inappropriate or irrelevant staging ideas.

Question 4 – Brecht

In stronger responses, candidates:

• addressed the question explicitly, discussing the contradictions and how they are revealed in our own society
• explored the contradictions through Brecht's theatrical techniques with reference to relevant workshops and staging – such as design, styles of acting, and the use of stagecraft – and to experiential learning by discussing real or imagined stage productions, both within and beyond the classroom
• referred explicitly to Brecht's contradictions, dramatic devices and techniques from within the text and re-contextualised, reinterpreted or reinvented these contradictions on the stage of the twenty-first century.

In weaker responses, candidates:

• presented a general checklist of Brecht's techniques without addressing the idea of contradictions or how they are revealed in our society
• ignored what the question asked and wrote generally or superficially about Brecht's techniques, such as verfremsdungeffekt, gestus and alienation
• presented few or no references to Brechtian contradictions and their impact on stage through examples of in-class workshops, experiences and/or productions seen.

Question 5 – Site-specific, Street and Event Theatre

In stronger responses, candidates:

• engaged with the requirements of the question, thoroughly discussing how site-specific theatre creates audience experiences that are different from those experienced in purpose-built theatres
• thoroughly explored relevant examples from the two set texts
• answered the question explicitly, linking their own processes of creating site-specific work with the processes of the practitioners.

In weaker responses, candidates:

• did not articulate the differences between site-specific or purpose-built theatres for an audience
• did not engage in or did not discuss their own experience of site-specific work or recounted superficial examples only
• did not discuss specific examples of case studies from the set texts
• were limited by a lack of significant theatre-making experiences.

Question 6 – Approaches to Acting

In stronger responses, candidates:

• addressed the key terms of the question directly
• responded insightfully and comprehensively to how the practitioners studied explore the connection between the mind and the body in their actor-training and theatre-making
• compared the work of the two practitioners
• used relevant and insightful examples of both their classroom workshop experiences and other production examples.

In weaker responses, candidates:

• failed to address all aspects of the question
• provided little personal workshop experience and/or production evidence to support their discussion.

Question 7 – Verbatim Theatre

In stronger responses, candidates:

• addressed all areas of the question with insight, consistently referring to the statement that 'A verbatim play loses its impact outside its original social context'
• focused their discussion on certain theatrical elements in the two plays in determining whether or not the plays lost their impact out of their original social context
• supported their discussion with relevant and staged examples
• treated each text and theatrical concept individually
• defined 'social context' and 'impact'
• engaged in a sustained and logical discussion.

In weaker responses, candidates:

• did not directly address the requirements of the question
• were not clear about what is meant by 'social context'
• did not demonstrate an understanding of the theatrical impact of the two texts
• gave inaccurate references.

Question 8 – Black Comedy

In stronger responses, candidates:

• addressed the key terms of the question directly
• identified the techniques and conventions of black comedy in the two plays studied
• showed an insightful understanding of the making of humour on stage
• explored how the techniques and conventions force audiences to laugh at the unthinkable
• supported their argument with highly relevant examples from their own workshop experiences or imagined directorial choices.

In weaker responses, candidates:

• did not engage with the key terms of the question, making statements without supportive evidence
• did not analyse the way techniques and conventions were used
• relied on a discussion of the plot or humorous incidents without linking these to the question
• described the key scenes from the text and/or retold the plot.