Hedvig's death is the moment students remember longest from The Wild Duck, and it generates some of the strongest and weakest argumentative writing in a drama unit. Strong essays make a claim about who or what is responsible and defend it with evidence. Weak essays express shock, repeat plot events, and stop before any argument appears.

The assignment works best when it gives students a debatable question, such as whether Hedvig's death is the result of Gregers's meddling, Hjalmar's cruelty, or the fragile illusions that held the household together. Each answer is defensible, and each requires different evidence. Students must weigh these possibilities rather than settle on the first culprit they can name.

Because the subject is a child's death, teachers should be thoughtful about tone in the prompt and in feedback. Some students have personal experience that makes the material heavy, so a brief note before the assignment acknowledging the difficulty is appropriate. The goal remains rigorous analysis, but it can be pursued with care.

What a Strong Argument Looks Like

A strong essay identifies a cause and traces it through the play rather than relying on the final scene alone. For example, a student blaming Hjalmar might point to his early dependence on Hedvig's affection, his reaction when he doubts his paternity in Act 4, and his failure to listen to her attempts to speak with him. Each piece builds a sequence that supports the claim.

• States a clear position on responsibility in the thesis rather than listing possible causes
• Uses evidence from Acts 3, 4, and 5 to trace how events lead to the ending
• Explains how Hedvig's age, loyalty, and failing eyesight shape her choices
• Addresses at least one competing explanation and responds to it directly
• Considers what the ending suggests about Ibsen's view of idealism and illusion

Common Pitfalls in Student Responses

One pitfall is blaming a single character without acknowledging the play's web of causes. Ibsen builds the tragedy from small failures, including Gina's silence about the past, Werle's earlier abuse of the Ekdals, and Relling's cynical tolerance. Essays that account for several of these threads tend to be more persuasive than those with a single scapegoat.

Another pitfall is melodramatic language that substitutes emotion for evidence. Phrases like "heartbreaking" or "unforgivable" may reflect genuine feeling but do not demonstrate analysis. Feedback can gently ask the student to replace the emotional word with a description of what the character actually does.

Feedback That Builds Argument Skills

Helpful comments focus on the structure of the argument. Ask the student to state in one sentence what the essay is trying to prove, then check whether each body paragraph contributes to that claim. Students are often surprised to discover that a paragraph they thought was central has little to do with their thesis.

Encourage revision by requesting a short rebuttal paragraph in which the student responds to the strongest opposing view. This exercise improves both the current essay and the student's general approach to argument. It also mirrors the kind of writing expected in college courses.

Grading Consistently Across Different Positions

When students hold different views about responsibility, graders must resist favoring the interpretation they find most convincing. A rubric focused on thesis clarity, evidence, reasoning, and engagement with counterarguments keeps attention on the quality of the argument. Applying that rubric through an AI tool as a first pass can help maintain consistency across a large class.

Teachers can then review borderline papers more carefully, particularly those with unconventional but well-supported claims. The combination of structured rubric and thoughtful review leads to fairer outcomes. Students learn that their grade reflects the strength of their reasoning, not their agreement with the teacher.