A2 English Language and Literature Coursework

Text Transformation

Think about changing the genre of a piece (eg a small collection of poems into a prose autobiography) or changing the intended audience of a piece (eg by rewriting a children's fairy story for adult readers or by taking a literary 'classic' and rewriting it for a young reader); think about modernising an old piece.

You can of course mix and match between these three areas: so by rewriting one of the Canterbury Tales for a modern television audience you are actually hitting all three aspects of text transformation!

Begin by thinking carefully about your source text. The board recommends that this is a 'literary text' (although they also praise in their reports work which has obviously not been derived from such a text!). Think about why you are choosing it and about what you are going to turn it into.

I want you to start by drafting out your commentary. You might want just to use bullet points at this stage; but in any case, you must set out here an agenda for the transformation you have set yourself. How will the structure of the writing be changed? How will your language choices be different from the original? If you find that it is hard to make clear answers to such questions, then you are probably not thinking about making the right sort of transformation! Rewriting the opening of a film as a novel is fine, unless you're going to right a dialogue-heavy copy in the present tense. Then you will hardly be changing anything!

You must read the whole of your source material. You can't effectively change the opening of a novel - or whatever - in my opinion, without having read the whole of that novel. By doing so, you will understand the significance of the opening, which will enable you to write a cleverer commentary and to make a subtler transformation.

It is a very good idea to read something written in the genre you are writing 'into'. You could write about such a text in your commentary, showing your sensitive understanding to its style and language use. Reading a text like this will actually - of course - help you in your own writing.

Lots of marks are reserved simply for the quality of your writing. Go for it. Write accurately and imaginatively. Take risks if you need to. Re-write, revise, edit and polish. Don't be satisfied with a first draft. If a sentence reads aloud clumsily, then rewrite it; if a phrase feels wrong, it is wrong. Don't rely on a narrow and repetitive vocabulary (unless your are seeking a special effect for a specific reason).

Below is the guidance provided by the board in its specification (syllabus) and in a separate advisory document about this task. Read it all carefully and ask if you would like something clarified.

(a) extracts from the specification

In this coursework module candidates are required to take a literary work of any genre, and apply the knowledge, understanding and insights gained from the AS modules in order to transform the original work into a different genre. Its transformation may also involve a different purpose and/or audience.

In particular, the module builds on the skills acquired in Module 3, the skills of writing for a particular audience and purpose, by requiring candidates to focus the stimulus on a literary text.

13.2 Assessment Objectives

AO1 This module requires candidates to communicate clearly the knowledge, understanding and insights gained from the combination of literary and linguistic study, using appropriate terminology and accurate written expression (21⁄2%)

A04 show understanding of the ways contextual variation and choices of form, style and vocabulary shape the meanings of texts (21⁄2%)

A05 identify and consider the ways attitudes and values are created and conveyed in speech and writing (21⁄2%)

A06 demonstrate expertise and accuracy in writing for a variety of specific purposes and audiences, drawing on knowledge of literary texts and features of language to explain and comment on the choices made (71⁄2%).

Candidates must also write a commentary on their work and for this they should adopt a form which will permit them to analyse and review

Assessment will be by the production of a coursework folder.

The work will be assessed by the candidate’s teacher and these assessments will be moderated by the AQA. The coursework folder will contain one or two pieces of work and the associated commentary and will exhibit the following features

There was a pleasing unanimity amongst senior moderators about this entry for NTB4. All commented on the fact that most centres had understood the spirit of the module and were working in some very interesting ways with it.

It was noticeable that the trend seems to be for candidates to move away from the adaptation (the novel into radio or film script, for example) and to produce more transformations than had been the case in the past. Both options are equally acceptable, though the seductive influence of Baz Luhrmann on weaker candidates was regretted by a number of moderators who had to deal with many in-your-face modernisations of Romeo and Juliet that were long on glitzy surface features, but regrettably shorter on sophisticated interplay between the source and new text and understanding of the former. Some candidates preferred to work with ‘safer’ genres, but many showed an adventurous spirit andattempted, for example, rap versions of stories or stand-up comedy routines. Several drew onknowledge gained in other parts of the specification about language variety and language change. The introduction of Edgar Allan Poe and Raymond Chandler to NTB 2 sparked off some very good ‘gothic’ and detective fiction writing, for instance. The keys, as ever, to success in this unit are that the new text should throw illumination onto the source text, that the candidate show a good understanding and intelligent use of the conventions of thenew genre and that there needs to be a clear distinction between the genre of the source text and that of the new one. It is therefore pleasing to report that there were far fewer instances of candidates who regarded the source text merely as an excuse to produce a piece of original writing, though the practice has not entirely withered and died yet. That there be a link between the old and the new texts is vital. The choice of source texts has become more varied and there are fewer instances of every candidate from a centre using the same text as a basis for transformation. As has been indicated in previous reports, this is a perfectly acceptable option for centres and is chosen to fit in with the type of candidate and with the pattern of teaching in the centre. Moderators do indicate, however, that, where it is possible to let candidates do so, better work seems to emanate from those who are allowed to choose their own texts. As always, there are the exceptions that prove this rule.

It was the rare centre which submitted two transformations for each candidate. In some cases these transformations tended to be brief and under-developed and the accompanying commentaries did not really allow for the kind of detailed explanation and analysis which meets the higher marking criteria. The inclusion of two pieces sometimes highlighted weaknesses in the candidate’s ability which might not otherwise have surfaced so markedly. There were also rare instances of candidates selecting only a few lines from a novel to transform, which did not therefore allow them to meet the criteria of ‘interplay’ or of ‘shedding light on the source text’. There were also fewer instances of a very short poem being chosen as the base text; indeed, one development seen in the work of a number of able candidates was the choice of a number of poems by the same author as the base text(s). This tended to produce some very good work in which material from the poems was woven together to produce a coherent and satisfying whole.

NTB4: Text Transformation

The best candidates seemed to work from texts that they had chosen themselves and ones that they had clearly engaged with. This is not to say, of course, that candidates from centres where they all worked from the same text achieved less good results; this is clearly not the case. There were, for instance, splendid examples of work from students who had all worked on the same source text. The best folders came from candidates who had engaged with the spirit of the module and created new texts which had clear links to the character, plot, themes, and the language of the original.

Candidates selected a variety of genres for their base texts, though poems and novels remain the most popular. A word of warning is in order for those candidates who feel that they wish to use a film script as their base text. The danger here is that they can find themselves with very little to transform and that their new text is essentially a transformation of a film, not of an original literary source text. Only the very best candidates seem able to achieve this and less able candidates would do well to be guided away from such a choice. There is, of course, nothing to prevent a candidate from transforming her or his base text into a film script.

A small number of centres allowed their candidates to use the base text merely as a stimulus for creative writing. This is not permissible. There must not only be interplay between the base text and the new text, but the process of creating the new text should also shed light on the source material.

As this is a Language and Literature Specification, students’ commentaries should aim to strike a balance between discussion of literary features of texts and linguistic ones. This was not always the case and there were some commentaries that would not have looked out of place as literature essays on the legacy syllabuses. The obverse of this were the commentaries that attempted little other than a close linguistic analysis of the features of their writing. Neither is welcomed. The best commentaries managed to achieve this balance, and made specific reference to features of the texts. Generalised commentary on genre features without such specificity was not welcome, though some candidates were keen to write in this manner. Where candidates had transformed the base text into poetry or another ‘listened-to’ genre, the better commentaries discussed features of phonology.

Though the specification does not require candidates to supply drafts of their work (as in NTB3), candidates should be encouraged to do so and this is particularly the case where a candidate refers to changes that he or she has made between drafts as a result of helpful critical comment from readers.