This is a preview of the whole essay
Peer Reviews
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
The Quality of Written Communication is very basic, and therefore there are no moments where the candidate makes many mistakes, because of the very simplistic register with which they write their answer. It would be a good practice in the future to become more familiar with constructing longer, more interestingly structured sentences and to use a wider range of punctuation to prove to the examiner that the candidate is a confident writer.
Level of analysis
The Level of Analysis shown here is indicative of a low C grade answer. There is a good understanding of the novel and it's themes shown, as well as it's role in presenting the duality of man, but often it feel like very little of the analysis this candidate actually gives relates back to the question proposed. This will lose many marks in the exam as the candidate has not been specific enough. Their comments are very general and could be applied to almost any analytical question for this novel. As a future tip: of candidate are struggling trying to make the link between their analytical points and the question then they should just re-word/re-phrase/re-use the words of the question in the Explanation section of their PEE (Point, Evidence & Explanation) formula. This way all points are tied back to the question and this encourages an even stronger focus. It would also be a good practice if the candidate didn't make half-complete remarks with no evidence or relevance to the question (the comment about sex in Nineteenth Century literature is bizarrely irrelevant and doesn't even relate to the novel, let alone the question).
Response to question
This essay response is directed at a question that asks it's candidate to consider how Robert Louis Stevenson present the duality of man in 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'. There is a basic level of analysis retained throughout the entire essay and a number of methods by which Stevenson explores man's duality have been addressed. There could be a better link made between the analysis and the question though, as a lot fo the comments are very general and are not tied to how they present the duality of man. Commenting on personification is perhaps not required in an essay like this, as the candidates are not asked for an analysis of exclusively language - this is a more thematic question and thus requires a thematic approach.