Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
Friday at 11:30-2:30 Botterell Hall (18 Stuart Street) ROOM B148
Instructor: Lisa Carver, M.A. PhD Candidate
Instructor Contact Information: LC105@Queensu.ca
Office Hours: Wednesday 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm or by appointment (D428 Mackintosh-Corry)
By 2031 Canadians over 65 years old are expected to comprise 25% of the population. This
course provides an introduction to contemporary issues on social aging, focusing on sociological
perspectives and theories of aging including: post-structuralism, postmodernism, social structural
(gender, race and social class) and cultural factors. Students will draw on sociological literature
to on aging to critically examine: 1) how aging is influenced by gender roles, culture, sexuality,
social class and ethnicity; 2) the importance of understanding the aging body as a social
construct; 3) how physical aspects of society (environment, buildings, transportation) influence
the experience of aging; and 4) the sociological impact of aging successfully with disability
and/or illness.
Course Goals and Objectives
This is a seminar course, and the active and thoughtful participation of students is required. This
class is a culture of possibility (Roberson 2011:885)1, using a variety of activities outside the
usual lecture context to facilitate learning. Each week you will be expected to read and discuss 1
or more articles.
Classes will be divided into three time blocks (11:30-12:20; 12:30-1:20; 1:30-2:20), with short
breaks between the sessions. Generally we will begin with the lecture component. After the first
break we will have guest presentations or a continuation of the lecture/discussion of material.
The final block of time in the class will be devoted to small group interactions focused on the
readings. The class will conclude with a brief presentation of one reading
(overview/strengths/weaknesses) from each group. The purpose is for you to engage with the
material, developing and defending your perceptions in a climate of support and constructive
criticism from your peers.
Evaluation
Grading Scheme
Class presentation 30%
Reading Response Diary 20%
Paper or Case study 40%
Class participation & attendance 10%
Due Dates
November 13th, 20th, 27th & December 4th
November 6th
December 4th
Calculated after end of class
1
Roberson, Sam. 2011. “Defying the Default Culture and Creating a Culture of Possibility” Education131(4):885904.
1
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
Late Policy
Late assignments will be penalized 5% per day.
Class presentation 30%
– 20 minutes (plus 5 minutes for questions)
The purpose of the presentation is to give students the opportunity to orally present their
understanding of the material. Presentations will be done individually, but it is expected that you
will collaborate with your peers in the development of your presentation. You will provide the
instructor and other students with 2 or 3 journal articles to use for preparation for your
presentation. Since the other students will have already read the material you provided them the
presentation must engage with the material in such a way that the depth of your understanding is
apparent and you go beyond a cursory review. Your presentation must be framed from a
sociological perspective.
Potential Presentation topics:
1. Elder abuse
3. Emergencies and elders
(tornados, earthquakes,
pandemics etc)
5. Knowledge translation of aging
research
7. Ageism and stereotypes
9. Illness and aging
11. Rural elders
13. Elder women
15. Visual impairment
17. Mobility challenges
19. Sexuality and aging
21. Sexual orientation and aging
23. Bereavement and social
exclusion
25. Intergenerational linkages
2. Self-concept and aging
4. Resilience and aging
6. Gerotranscendence and aging
8. Global issues in aging
10. Dementia care (Dutch farm)
12. Social stability & subsistence
14. Cultural beliefs, religion
16. Migration, immigration
18. Policy change/protection of elders
20. Good death - bad death
22. Assisted suicide
24. Organ & body donation
26. Your idea??? Must get approval well
before presentations begin
Aspects you will have to cover in your presentation:
1. An overview of the topic from a sociological perspective
2. A critical assessment including strengths, weaknesses and debates in the literature
3. At least two examples of research that substantiate your argument (journal articles)
2
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
4. Questions for your peers that can be used to inspire discussion after your presentation
5. An outline of your presentation – which will be provided to the instructor and the other
students electronically prior to the presentation. Make sure that you include definitions
of terminology and important concepts. Also include the list of references used for your
presentation.
It is expected that you will use slides for your presentation and that you will facilitate a class
discussion afterwards.
Arguing a position: Academic Paper or Case Study 40%
You may do either a position paper or a case study.
If you chose to do a position paper, it must be presenting and supporting a perspective on an
issue(s) regarding the sociology of aging. This is not an overview of the literature, but an
argument for a particular position which you support with academic sources. It cannot be the
same as your presentation, but it may be related to it. You will be marked on the strength of your
argument, writing, your use of supporting material and referencing (ASA style).
If you chose to do a case study you must base it on interviews with someone over the age of 65
years old. You will be presenting a position derived from the information you gather in your
interviews and supported by academic sources. This is not a biography, although you may use
biographical examples from your interviews to illustrate ideas. You must integrate theoretical
perspectives on the sociology of aging into your analysis of the case study and presentation of
the position.
ASA format is required for the paper/case study, as is thoughtful analysis of the topic/case study.
Reading Response Diary 20%
Your reading response diary is a hand written document (unless you have an exemption from
disability services) to help you connect with the era experienced by those who are over age 65
years old. You must write legibly. You may add illustrations if you wish. You are expected to
use a bound book (blank or lined paper). You are expected to be sophisticated in terms of
language (no slang or text style abbreviations).
Each week you will chose one or more readings to comment on. In your comments you will:
1. Give an overview of the article including the purpose, importance, strengths and
weaknesses
2. Your thoughts about the article, how it relates to your life or those around you.
3
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
3. Your thoughts in terms of how this article sheds light or creates questions concerning
your presentation or paper topic(s)
4. Response to the ideas presented by a guest speaker, linked to the week’s readings
You will be graded based on the presence of a reading response for every week; the quality of
remarks, creativity and insight.
Class participation & attendance 10%
Attending each class is not sufficient to get full marks for participation. You are expected to
have read 1-2 of the assigned articles before coming to class. You will be working in small
groups every week to discuss 1 article and then, as a group, present the article to the class
(overview and strengths/weakness). If you are absent without contacting the instructor before
the class (or after with a doctor’s note) you will be given a zero for participation in that class.
Academic Integrity
Academic integrity is constituted by the five core fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness,
respect and responsibility (see www.academicintegrity.org). These values are central to the
building, nurturing and sustaining of an academic community in which all members of the
community will thrive. Adherence to the values expressed through academic integrity forms a
foundation for the "freedom of inquiry and exchange of ideas" essential to the intellectual life of
the University (see the Senate Report on Principles and Priorities
http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/senateandtrustees/principlespriorities.html).
Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the regulations concerning academic
integrity and for ensuring that their assignments conform to the principles of academic integrity.
Information on academic integrity is available in the Arts and Science Calendar (see Academic
Regulation 1 http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/academic-calendars/2011-2012-calendar/academicregulations/regulation-1 ), on the Arts and Science website (see
http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/academics/undergraduate/academic-integrity), and from the
instructor of this course. Departures from academic integrity include plagiarism, use of
unauthorized materials, facilitation, forgery and falsification, and are antithetical to the
development of an academic community at Queen's. Given the seriousness of these matters,
actions which contravene the regulation on academic integrity carry sanctions that can range
from a warning or the loss of grades on an assignment to the failure of a course to a requirement
to withdraw from the university.
Copyright of Course Materials
4
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
The material on this website is copyrighted and is for the sole use of students registered in SOCY
424. The material on this website may be downloaded for a registered student’s personal use, but
shall not be distributed or disseminated to anyone other than students registered in SOCY 424.
Failure to abide by these conditions is a breach of copyright, and may also constitute a breach of
academic integrity under the University Senate’s Academic Integrity Policy Statement.
Text: articles as assigned
5
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
September 18th:
Welcome; Ethnic & Cultural Diversity; Social Constructions of Age
 Review of Syllabus
 Review of assignments
 Myths of aging
 What are the biological, psychological, and social dimensions of age?
 How do they differ in different societies and subgroups?
 How can age be studied at the macro and micro levels?
 Population aging
Shaw, Frank. 2002. “Is the Ageing Population the Problem it is Made out to Be?” Foresight –
The Journal of Future Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy 4(3):4-11.
Kinsella, Kevin. 2002. “Demographic Dimensions of Global Aging.” Journal of Family Issues
21:541-558.
Buchignani, Norman and Christopher Armstrong-Esther. 1999. “Informal Care and Older Native
Canadians.” Ageing and Society 19:3-32.
Ng, Anita Ching Ying, David Phillips and WillaimKeng-mun Lee. 2002. “Persistence and
Challenges to Filial Piety and Informal Support of Older Persons in a Modern Chinese
Society: A Case Study in TuenMun, Hong Kong.” Journal of Aging Studies 16:135-153.
Shenk, Dena. 2000. “Views of Aging African American Women: Memories Within the
Historical Context.” Journal of Aging and Identity 5(2):109-125.
September 25th:
Premodernity, Modernity and Postmodernity
 Premodernity
 Modernity
 Postmodernity
Aboderin, Isabella. 2004. “Modernisation and Ageing Theory Revisited: Current Explanations of
Recent Developing World and Historical Western Shifts in Material Family Support for
Older People.” Ageing and Society 24:29-50.
Lee, Raymond. 2008. “Modernity, Mortality and Re-Enchantment: The Death Taboo Revisited.”
Sociology 42(4):745-59.
Polivka, Larry. 2000. “Postmodern Aging and the Loss of Meaning.” Journal of Aging and
Identity, 5(4):225-235.
6
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
Powell, Jason and Charles Longino, Jr. 2001. “Towards the Postmodernization of Aging: The
Body and Social Theory.” Journal of Aging and Identity 6(4):199-206.
Warren, Carol. 1998. “Aging and Identity in Premodern Times.” Research on Aging 20(1):11-35.
October 2nd:
Sociological Perspectives & Theories of Aging
 Structural-Functional perspective
 Theory of disengagement
 Activity Theory
 Continuity Theory
 Symbolic-Interaction
 Social conflict
McMullin, Julie Ann. 2000. “Diversity and the State of Sociological Aging Theory.” The
Gerontologist 40(5):517-530.
Fine, Michael. 2014. “Nurturing Longevity: sociological constructions of ageing, care and the
body.” Health Sociology Review 23(1):33-42.
Cumming, Elaine. 1963. “Further Thoughts on the Theory of Disengagement.” International
Social Science Journal, 15(3):377-393.
Lemon, Bruce, Vern L. Bengtson and James A. Person. 1972. “An Exploration of the Activity
Theory of Aging: Activity Types and Life Satisfaction among In-Movers to a Retirement
Community.” Journal of Gerontology 27(4):511-523.
Linda K. George. 1993. “Sociological Perspectives on Life Transitions.” Annual Review of
Sociology 19:353-373.
October 9th:
Life Course Perspective & Overarching lives
 Aging Self, Creativity & Wisdom
 Life Course Perspective
 How age-segregated or age-integrated is the adult life course in our society, and why?
 When does older adulthood begin, and what roles, phases, and transitions does it contain?
 Why do earlier life conditions matter so much for later life outcomes?
 How is the accumulation of advantage across the life course similar to or distinct from
the accumulation of disadvantage?
7
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424

FALL 2015
Which “turning points” do you think are particularly important for understanding an
individual’s life course, and how could we best study turning points and their
consequences?
Crimmins, Eileen, Mark D. Hayward, Aaron Hagedorn, Yasuhiko Saito and Nicolas Brouard.
2009. “Change in Disability-Free Life Expectancy for Americans 70 Years Old and
Older.” Demography 46:627-646.
Ferraro, Kenneth F. and Tetyana Pylypiv Shippee. 2009. “Aging and Cumulative Inequality:
How Does Inequality Get Under the Skin?” Gerontologist 49(3):333-343.
Fine, Michael and Caroline Glendinning. 2005. “Dependence, independence or interdependence?
Revisiting the concepts of ‘Care’ and ‘Dependency’.” Ageing and Society 25:601-21.
Brewer, Loretta. 2001. “Gender Socialization and the Cultural Construction of Elder
Caregivers.” Journal of Aging Studies 15:217-35.
Russell, Richard. 2001. “In Sickness and in Health: A Qualitative Study of Elderly Men who
Care for Wives with Dementia.” Journal of Aging Studies 15:351-67.
October 16th:
Gender, Linked lives/Sexuality
 How do partners select and influence each other at various stages in the life course?
 How do social norms shape the linking of lives?
 How much, and in what ways, does the principle of linked lives apply to weak ties
between individuals?
Twig, Julia. 2004. “The Body, Gender and Age: Feminist Insights in Social Gerontology.”
Journal of Aging Studies 18:50-73.
Sassler, Sharon. 2010. “Partnering Across the Life Course: Sex, Relationships, and Mate
Selection.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72(3):557-575.
Waltz, Thomas. 2002. “Crones, Dirty Old Men, Sexy Seniors: Representations of the Sexuality
of Older Persons.” Journal of Aging and Identity 7(2):3-23.
Burton, Linda M. 1996. “Age Norms, the Timing of Family Role Transitions, and
Intergenerational Caregiving among African American Women.” The Gerontologist
36:199-208.
8
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology
78(6):1360-1380.
October 23rd:
Transportation, Outdoor Spaces and Buildings
 Environment as a factor in aging
 How could housing and accessibility policies shape the process of aging?
 Disability and accessibility
Consider these 3 as 1 reading:
1. Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. 2007. World Health Organization
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241547307_eng.pdf
2. Age-friendly Cities checklist
www.who.int/ageing/publications/Age_friendly_cities_checklist.pdf
3. Ontario Accessibilities Act
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/accessibility/index.aspx
Dupuis, Jossette, Deborah R. Weiss, and Christina Wolfson, C. 2007. “Gender and
Transportation Access Among Community-Dwelling Seniors.” Canadian Journal on
Aging. 26(2):149-158.
Mercado, Ruben, Antonio Paez and Bruce K. Newbold. 2010. “Transport policy and the
provision of mobility options in an aging society: a case study of Ontario, Canada.”
Journal of Transport Geography 18:649-661.
Michael, Yvonne L., Mandy K. Green, and Stephanie A. Farquhar. 2006. “Neighborhood Design
and Active Aging.” Health & Place 12(4):734-740.
Scott, Darren M, Kenneth B. Newbold, Jamie E.L. Spinney, Ruben Mercado, Antonio Paez, and
Pavlos S. Kanaroglou. 2009. “New Insights into Senior Travel Behavior: The Canadian
Experience.” Growth and Change 40(1):140-168.
October 30th:
Social structure and human agency
 How much do governments affect their citizens’ life course?
 How can better understand human agency, which is often treated by sociologists as a
“black box” or random error?
9
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424



FALL 2015
To what extent can individuals exercise agency given the structural constraints they face?
What policies seem promising for dealing with the challenges of an aging population in
the U.S., and why?
How could policies shape the process of retirement to create a successful transition and
secure financial prospects in retirement?
If we manage to slow the process of human aging and extend life expectancies, what will
the implications be for our society?
Oeppen, Jim and James W. Vaupel. 2002. “Demography: Enhanced: Broken Limits to Life
Expectancy.” Science 296(5570):1029-1031.
Brueckner, Hannah and Karl Ulrich Mayer. 2004. “Destandardization of the Life Course: What It
MightMean? And If It Means Anything, Whether It Actually Took Place?” Pp. 27-54 in
The Structure of the Life Course: Standardized? Individualized? Differentiated?, edited by
R. Macmillan. New York NY: Elsevier.
Hitlin, Steven, and Glen H. Elder, Jr. 2007. “Time, Self, and the Curiously Abstract Concept of
Agency.” Sociological Theory 25:170-191.
Thoits, Peggy A. 1994. “Stressors and Problem-Solving: the Individual as Psychological
Activist.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 35:143-159.
Wilkins, Amy C. 2004. “Puerto Rican Wannabes: Sexual Spectacle and the Marking of Race,
Class, and Gender Boundaries.” Gender & Society 18(1):103-121.
November 6th:
Successful Aging
 Quality of Life/Adaptation
 Models of successful aging
Razanova, Julia. 2010. “Discourse of Successful Aging in The Globe and Mail: Insights from
Critical Gerontology.” Journal of Aging Studies 24(5):725-744.
Marquez, David. X., Eduardo Bustamante, Bryan Blissmer, and Thomas Prohaska. 2009.
“Health Promotion for Successful Aging.” American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.
3(1):12-19.
Depp, Colin A. and Dilip V. Jeste. 2006. “Definitions and predictors of successful aging: A
comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies.” American Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry 14(1):6-20.
10
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
Cho, Jimmyoung, Peter Martin, and Leonard W. Poon. 2012. “The older they are, the less
successful they become? Findings from the Georgia Centenarian Study.” Journal of Aging
Research 2012:1-8.
Dillaway, Heather E. and Mary Byrnes. 2009. “Reconsidering successful aging. A call for
renewed and expanded academic critiques and conceptualizations.” Journal of Applied
Gerontology 28(6):702–722.
November 13th: WEEK 9 PRESENTATIONS
November 20th: WEEK 10 PRESENTATIONS
November 27th: WEEK 11 PRESENTATIONS
December 4th: WEEK 12 PRESENTATIONS & Conclusions
FINAL PAPER DUE
11
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
Appendix A
Marking Guidelines
Queen’s Grading System
A Range (80 and above)
Papers in this range will show excellence in most or all of the
categories we look for:

Introduction: The introduction will ideally establish an
argument, accurately describe the paper’s methodology (i.e.,
list the topics it will cover), and state a thesis.

Thesis: It will be concise and analytical, and will show
insight into the student’s topic.

Organization: The argument will be logically broken down
into manageable units, each of which will be well supported
by appropriate evidence. There will be smooth transitions
between the paper’s sections.
A+
90% and above
A
85% – 89%
A-
80% – 84%
B+
75% – 79%
B
70% – 74%
B-
65% – 69%
C+
60% – 64%
C
55% – 59%
C-
50% – 54%

Development: There is more than the summation of others’ ideas.FEvery below
detail50%
is
analysed and introduced in support of some facet of the author’s argument.

Use of Evidence: Evidence will be carefully analysed and effectively integrated, and
appropriate conclusions will be drawn from it. If secondary evidence is cited, it will be
fully and accurately documented.

Conclusion: There will be an effective conclusion that steps back from the paper’s
argument and contextualizes it, or indicates how it might be taken to the next level.

Style: The paper will be largely free from error and awkwardness; the writing will be
clear and effective, without being wordy or mannered.

Formatting: The paper will be cleanly and accurately formatted.
83 and up: These papers are structurally sound, mechanically flawless, and show impressive
interpretative ability. Either they show truly insightful reading of existing research, or their
argument is strikingly original, or they combine creativity and analysis in ways that get our
attention.
80–82 (A-): These papers demonstrate some excellence, but are held back by some logical,
structural, or mechanical problem. The most common problems are:

The thesis, though suitably analytical, isn’t well enough supported with evidence.
12
First-class
marks
Secondclass marks
Pass
Failure
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015

Evidence won’t be effectively used: the author might quote references without analysing
them, or draw inappropriate conclusions from them. Evidence might be badly integrated,
or too sparse.

The writing will be problematic: either there will be occasional mechanical problems, or
the paper will be too wordy, unclear, or prone to generalization.

Transitions between sections of the paper may be weak or abrupt.

The paper will be inconsistent: well argued parts will alternate with at least one section
that is noticeably weaker.
B Range (70–79)
Most papers fall in this range. B-range marks are good marks: these papers meet our
expectations, but are held back by some of the following characteristics.

Introduction: The introduction might resort to generalization instead of establishing a
specific analysis, or forget to describe its methodology (a very common omission).

Thesis: The thesis may be descriptive rather than argumentative. The argument may be
weak or very obvious (i.e., domestic violence is harmful) The author may make value
judgements that cannot be proven (e.g., “I think that Marx had a fear of being wealthy”).

Organization: Generally the paper will be broken down into logical units, but not all of
them may support the thesis equally well. Sometimes there will be a couple of pages of
exposition and then one paragraph that must do all the work of supporting the thesis.
Alternatively, there might be a section that doesn’t seem to belong in the paper.

Development: There may be summary of existing research in places.

Use of Evidence: Evidence may not be effectively integrated: the author will quote or
cite without analysing the evidence or explaining its significance. Reading of existing
research may be somewhat descriptive, or else there won’t be very much of it. Some
points may lack sufficient evidence.

Conclusion: The conclusion might largely repeat the introduction, or else be too brief
and lack integration with rest of the paper. On the other hand, the conclusion might state
the paper’s thesis more effectively than the introduction.

Style: There may be grammatical errors and instances of awkward style (e.g., wordiness,
word-choice errors). Alternatively, the writing might show little variation in sentence
structure, for example, using many short, declarative sentences.

Formatting: There may be occasional signs of carelessness.
13
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015
B+ (77–79): B+ papers are very good. There is a clear thesis, although it might be unanalytical.
The argument is generally well developed and supported with evidence. The author’s research
shows good judgement and insight. These papers are largely free from serious structural or
mechanical problems. There might be a few errors or signs of carelessness, or problems with the
use of evidence (it might not be well enough integrated, or sufficiently analysed). Most
commonly, these papers play things too safe: they avoid difficulty, and stick to simple claims
that can be definitively proven.
B (73–76): The thesis may be unanalytical, and the paper may include too much summary of
existing research. Sometimes there won’t be an obvious thesis in the introduction: the paper has
an argument, but it’s not clearly stated anywhere, so the reader has to guess. Transitions between
paragraphs may be perfunctory or absent. It may be unclear why the author is discussing a
particular topic at a particular point in the argument. There may not be enough evidence, or it
may be insufficiently analysed or integrated. B papers tend to be inconsistent: parts of the
argument may be underdeveloped, textual support may be uneven, or only part of the paper may
pertain to the thesis. Papers in this range may contain misreadings, or base broad claims on
slender evidence. Instead of trying to make fine distinctions or showing the complexity of an
issue, these papers may offer black-and-white judgements.
B- (70–72): B- papers are generally B papers with writing problems that are serious enough to
interfere with clarity. There may also be paragraphing problems, which often indicate difficulty
in breaking the argument down into logical units.
C and D Ranges (50–70)
These papers do not meet our expectations. D- and C-range papers show similar problems to Brange ones, but more pervasively. Note that you need a minimum mark of B- (2.6 grade
points) in SOCY 122 to take further Sociology courses. Introduction: Generally perfunctory:
two to three sentences that state the thesis, but do little else. Where the intro is longer, it will
likely have too much generalization.

Thesis: There may not be one, or it may be too descriptive, simple, or difficult to
identify. Very commonly the thesis will be vague: the author won’t offer enough context
or explanation to make the argument clear. These papers might offer value judgements
instead of arguments that can be proven with evidence.

Organization: There may be paragraphing problems (e.g., too many short paragraphs, no
topic sentences, no transitions between paragraphs). Parts of the essay may not relate to
the thesis, and there may be no clear principle governing the order of the essay’s parts.
14
Sociology of Aging – SOCY 424
FALL 2015

Development: These papers may depend heavily on the summary of existing research.
The author’s ideas may require more explanation. There may be too little insight into
research, or it may be too descriptive or prone to error. The argument may follow the text
too closely, simply covering events in the order in which they occur. These papers may
contradict themselves.

Use of Evidence: There may be unsupported generalizations, and the paper lacks
sufficient evidence. There may be many long quotations with too little commentary to
relate them to the thesis or to justify their length. Quotations may not be sufficiently
analysed.

Conclusion: May be formulaic, or may repeat the introduction.

Style: Awkward and faulty, exhibiting frequent errors in grammar and punctuation. The
choice of words may not be adequate for the expression of complex ideas. These papers
are likely to be generally unclear.

Formatting: There may be clear signs of carelessness and haste.
C papers (60–69): These essays earn a passing grade, but are problematic. The author must
review the elements of essay structure (introductions and conclusions, paragraphs with topic
sentences and transitions) and correct any writing problems.
D papers- (50–59): Although technically they pass, these papers show little knowledge of the
text and little attempt to engage with the topic. The thesis is probably weak and poorly
supported. Structural problems that make the paper difficult to understand: paragraphs may not
connect to one another or add up to an argument. Evidence may be minimal or misinterpreted.
Writing problems tend to be pervasive. The essay may be too short, and will show signs of being
written in haste.
15