Students prepare a written proposal for the Major Work and present and defend it in a Viva Voce, articulating the concept, scope, emphases and chosen form and their relationship to prior Stage 6 English study

This is the core Viva Voce prompt in defence form, worth roughly 10 marks against the early-process criteria. Markers reward a candidate who names a contestable concept (not a topic), defines a scope that fits the word or time limit, and justifies the form as the right vehicle for the idea.

The decisive move is the explicit link to prior study: name specific concepts, texts or techniques from Advanced or Extension 1 (for example the rubric idea of how composers position responders, or a technique studied in a set text) and show how the Major Work builds on them rather than sitting apart. A response that cannot answer "why this form" or "why this scope" exposes a project still drifting. Speak as the author of the work, in a confident, specific register, and use the journal as evidence that investigation is already underway.

An evaluative process question worth about 8 marks. "Assess" requires a judgement supported by reasons, not a description of what the proposal contains.

Argue that the proposal forces early articulation of concept, scope and form, so weaknesses surface while they are cheap to fix, and that the Viva Voce works as a genuine defence in which a teacher's hard questions preview a marker's questions of the finished work. The strongest answers concede a limit (the proposal is not a contract and the concept will refine through investigation) while still judging the checkpoints valuable because they give the project a reference point against which later changes can be tested as growth rather than drift.

The four elements (3 marks, 1 each for any three plus the definitional link). (1) The concept, stated as a contestable claim or idea rather than a neutral topic. (2) The scope, defining what the project will and will not attempt within the word or time limit. (3) The emphases, naming which aspects of the concept or form the project will foreground. (4) The form, the medium and mode chosen, justified as suited to the concept.

Marking spine: three or four elements correctly named (3); two named (2); one (1). Naming "research" or "the journal" instead of one of the four required elements does not earn credit.

Why it is weak (2 marks). "I want to explore trauma" names a topic, not a contestable claim, gives no indication of scope (how much of "trauma" and from what angle), and commits to no form, so a teacher cannot yet assess whether the project is viable or judge whether the eventual work matches the pitch.

A stronger rewrite (2 marks, hypothetical/generic, any comparable answer accepted). "I will compose a short story collection arguing that survivors of trauma often experience memory as fragmented and non-chronological, told through three linked stories that deliberately withhold chronological order to enact this fragmentation for the reader." This version names a contestable claim (memory as fragmented, not simply distressing), a scope (three linked short stories), and a form justified by the concept (structure enacting fragmentation).

Marking spine: an accurate diagnosis of the vagueness (2), a rewrite that visibly supplies a contestable claim, a bounded scope and a justified form (2). A rewrite that only adds detail without making the claim contestable earns partial credit.

A 5-mark stimulus task rewards precise diagnosis against the four required elements, not a vague "this needs work".

Concept weakness (about 2 marks). "How social media affects teenagers" is a topic, not a contestable claim; it takes no position and does not identify what specifically the project will argue or explore (for example, a specific claim about performance of identity, or algorithmic amplification of anxiety).

Scope and form weaknesses (about 3 marks). Combining a short film, poems and photography is an unmanageable, undefined scope for a single form-focused Major Work, and "haven't fully decided on length" signals the project is not yet viable to approve. The multi-form combination also has no stated justification: there is no reasoning for why three different media are needed to realise one concept, which is precisely the "sprawling promise" a Viva Voce would expose. A workable revision would commit to ONE form chosen because it best serves a specific, contestable claim, with a stated word or time limit.

Marking spine: the concept identified as a topic rather than a claim (2); the scope/form combination identified as unmanageable with a reason (2); an indication of what a workable version would look like (1). An answer that only says "it's too vague" with no reference to the specific weaknesses in the extract caps at 2.

The core distinction (about 4 marks). A presentation is a one-way delivery of information the student has already prepared; a defence requires the student to justify choices under questioning they cannot fully anticipate, showing the thinking survives scrutiny rather than merely reciting it. The Viva Voce explicitly asks students to explain how the concept, scope, emphases and form draw on and extend prior Stage 6 English study, which requires answering in the moment, adapting to follow-up questions, and demonstrating that the project is genuinely the student's own reasoned choice rather than a proposal written and then forgotten.

Why this matters (about 2 marks). Because a teacher's questions in the Viva Voce typically mirror the kind of questions a marker will later ask of the finished work (why this form, why this scope), surviving that questioning is a genuine test of whether the project's foundations are sound, not a formality to clear.

Marking spine: the presentation/defence distinction explained with reference to real-time justification (4); the link to why this functions as a genuine test, not a formality (2). A response that only restates what the Viva Voce covers, without explaining why questioning under pressure differs from a rehearsed talk, stays mid-band.

A 6-mark judgement task needs a stated position, reasons on both sides, and a balanced conclusion, not a one-sided description.

The case for real value (about 3 marks)

Forcing early articulation of concept, scope and form surfaces weaknesses (an uncontestable concept, an unmanageable scope, an unjustified form) while they are cheap to fix, before months of drafting have been invested in a flawed premise; the Viva Voce's questioning previews the kind of scrutiny a marker will apply to the finished work, so a project that survives it is better prepared for that later scrutiny.

The limit (about 2 marks)

The proposal is not a contract: concepts legitimately refine as investigation and drafting continue, so a project that looks somewhat different in October to its March proposal is not necessarily a failure of the checkpoint, and treating the proposal as fixed could wrongly punish genuine development.

Judgement (about 1 mark)

On balance the checkpoints are valuable specifically because they give the project a reference point against which later change can be tested as growth rather than drift, not because they lock the project in place.

Marking spine: a clear stated position (implicit throughout), the case for value with at least two distinct reasons (3), the limit acknowledged (2), a reasoned final judgement rather than an unresolved list (1).

A 15-mark extended response needs a fluent, defended pitch, not a bullet-point list: each of the four required elements named and justified, with an explicit, specific link to prior study.

Band 6 PLAN.

Concept, stated as a contestable claim. A hypothetical Major Work might argue that formal, official language (legal, bureaucratic, medical) can be weaponised to obscure rather than clarify meaning, and that ordinary people's attempts to translate that language back into plain speech reveal where power actually sits in an institution.

Scope. The project bounds this to one institutional setting (for example, a migration or tenancy dispute) told through a single protagonist's encounters with three pieces of official correspondence, kept to a defined word limit so the claim is explored with depth rather than diluted across too many settings.

Emphases. The project foregrounds voice and register above plot incident: the drama is in how language shifts (or fails to shift) between the institution's register and the protagonist's, rather than in external events.

Form, justified. A short story (rather than a script or verse) is chosen because prose allows the official documents to be quoted verbatim inside the narrative voice, letting the contrast in register do the work the concept needs, a choice a screenplay's dialogue-only convention would blunt.

The link to prior study (the decisive element). The project extends the Advanced course's attention to how texts position responders through register and modality, and a technique studied in Extension 1 concerning the unreliable or partial narrator, applying both to a new context (official documents rather than a literary text) rather than repeating either course's set material.

Marker's note: markers reward all four required elements named and each one justified (not just listed), a concept phrased as a genuinely contestable claim, a form justified against a plausible alternative it was chosen over, and a SPECIFIC, named link to prior Stage 6 study (a course, a technique, a rubric concept), not a generic "this builds on what I have learned". An answer that only describes the project with no justification of choices, or that claims to "extend prior study" with no specific technique or course named, cannot reach the top band.