EXAMINERS' REPORTS
LEVEL 1 / LEVEL 2 CERTIFICATE IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
NOVEMBER 2015
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at:
https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en
Online results analysis
WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is
restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer
at the centre.
Annual Statistical Report
The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall
outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC.
Unit
Page
Paper 1
1
Paper 2
7
Speaking and Listening
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
13
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Level 1 / Level 2 Certificate
November 2015
PAPER 1
Principal Examiner:
Jules Swain
Section A
As with previous papers, this paper required the close reading of a short fictional extract.
The extract was adapted from Marcus Zusak’s novel The Book Thief and provided engaging
content for candidates across the ability range. The extract depicts some of the experiences
of Max Vandenburg, a Jewish boy growing up in Germany in the time leading to the Second
World War. The narrative moves quickly from describing his early life and some of the key
events which changed his personal life. His keenness for fist fighting is quickly established
and the narrative takes us through the detail of his favourite fist fight with Walter Kugler and
the development of their subsequent friendship. The extract ends with the occurrence of
Kristallnacht and Walter, now a Nazi, arriving to rescue his friend using the ‘chaos’ of the
night to get him away.
Overall, the extract seemed to engage and sustain the interest of candidates of a wide range
of abilities. The opening section provided a clear ‘way in’ to the paper and a genuine
opportunity to pick up marks. As ever, candidates who did not read the questions and
instructions carefully may have struggled due to a lack of understanding of what they needed
to do or which section of the text they were supposed to read. Other difficulties were
encountered by those who misread the text or misjudged inferred meaning, those who
answered using their own contextual knowledge of this period of history rather than using the
content of the text to frame their answer, or those who answered so briefly that there was not
the opportunity for them to accumulate marks.
A1
The initial lines of the passage provided plenty of biographical information about Max and
there was a wealth of points available here in answer to the question, ‘What do you find out
about Max Vandenburg in this extract?’ This was a straightforward question and there was a
real opportunity to score highly by tracking the text carefully and identifying a range of the
evidence that was available. As ever, candidates benefited from an organised approach.
Better answers were able to clearly reference detail about Max’s background and his family
combined with the history of his love of fighting. Weaker answers tended to be brief or quite
narrow in range. Those who focused in too much detail, often repetitively, on one or two
points rather than seeing the range of detail that was available for commentary also
struggled to accumulate marks.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
Candidates had a number of opportunities to make straightforward points, drawing on the
evidence of the text. For example, it is made clear very quickly that Max was ‘born in 1916’,
he ‘grew up in Stuttgart’ and ‘he used to love nothing more than a good fistfight’. There was
also plenty of information about his life with his mother, and subsequently his uncle and ‘six
cousins’, to draw upon. Towards the end of these lines more information is offered about his
fighting experiences and initial detail was received with regard to his ‘favourite fight’.
Candidates who were able to recognise the range of detail offered about Max were able to
get themselves off to a very good start indeed in answers to this question.
A2
This question was a fairly straightforward ‘how’ question and focused upon the ‘excitement
of the fight’. It required awareness of the events that take place alongside a clear focus on
Zusak’s use of language and technique to encourage reader excitement. Generally,
candidates appeared engaged by this scene and many acquitted themselves reasonably
well here. Most were able to identify some of the key points which made this section of the
text exciting. There really was a wealth of evidence available to comment upon and the only
real anticipated danger came from the concern that candidates would perhaps attempt to
cover too much here in the time available, leaving themselves exposed or short of time
elsewhere. This did not really come to pass though and it was only a minority of candidates
who were able to really offer a study of the writer’s use of language and the effects created.
Candidates were aided by tracking the text carefully – awareness of the stages of the fight
was crucial to understanding the build-up of excitement, and some candidates were able to
recognise this and demonstrate knowledge of the writer’s use of structure. Many candidates
were able to respond to the initial lines of this section and accumulate evidence on the
reaction of the crowd. The crowd’s excitement and anticipation for the fight was generally
well documented with some candidates also able to reference the fact that betting was
taking place. The detail of the fight tended to be much more condensed and only a relatively
few candidates took time to explore the physical mismatch between the two fighters and how
this helped to generate excitement. There was also plenty of evidence to demonstrate the
beating that Max took and his determination to keep going. The climax of the fight was also
neglected a little with the majority of candidates focusing entirely on the ending of these lines
where Walter lifted Max’s arm in the air and ‘proffered’ the warning, ‘Next time, I kill you.’ It
was pleasing to see that some candidates did take time to look at the crowd’s counting to
confirm the victory and the impact that this had on the tension of the scene. Overall though,
candidates who had the tools to really analyse the evidence they selected and offer
judgement on the writer’s techniques tended to be in the minority.
A3
This question offered some challenge, particularly for able candidates. It asked candidates to
focus on what they ‘learn about the friendship between Max and Walter’ in the given lines.
Some of the initial points which related to the history of their friendship and their fighting
years were relatively easy to access and very few of those who made an attempt at this
question failed to identify at least one or two points in relation to their fight record and
history. Those who confused the names of the two boys though did come unstuck in this
section. Relatively few candidates looked carefully at the lines which followed this and the
conversation which took place between Max and Walter in relation to the laws of the time.
Understanding Walter’s dismissive attitude towards Max’s wearing of the yellow star and the
bitter humour of both in discussion about the new laws was crucial for a full understanding of
their continuing relationship. The ability to ‘stand back’ from the text and offer an overview of
their relationship was crucial to access the highest marks. Many were able to demonstrate
that the relationship, originally based on fighting, clearly turns to friendship but few went
further than this. A summative explanation of their situation and the different directions their
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
lives appear to be taking was missed by many, as was the mutual respect shared by these
characters. Most misunderstood and/or neglected though the fact that the differences in their
positions did not appear to affect their regard for one another.
A4
The final reading question was separated into two parts with the ‘What happens in these
lines?’ element providing the opportunity to explain the sequence of the text. Very few of
those who attempted an answer failed to score and there was some range of points which
could be chosen regarding the events in that particular section. Candidates who offered a
sequential assessment of what takes place in the text generally showed some
understanding. Better candidates were able to track the text from the introduction of
‘Kristallnacht’ and its more widespread significance then focus specifically on what it meant
for Max Vandenburg. They were able to chart the position of Max and his family, and their
fear following the ‘clatter of knuckles’ on the apartment door. The arrival of a uniformed
‘Nazi’ enhanced the fear but ultimately it became clear that it was Walter, here to save Max.
It was clear that Max did escape because the text told us so at the beginning of this section,
‘Max Vandenburg’s moment of escape’, unfortunately this clear steer to aid understanding
was missed by a number of candidates. Candidates who misunderstood Walter’s intentions
– either because they thought he had betrayed Max and was there to arrest him or because
they thought he had come to recruit him to the Nazi cause found it difficult to progress here.
Misreading also made their justification of their own thoughts and feelings more difficult to
convincingly explain. It was certainly difficult to support some of the more assertive
declarations, such as those who suggested Walter wanted Max in the army with him
because of his fighting skill, with clear textual support.
Generally, the better candidates tackled the part of the question which asked for their
‘thoughts and feelings’, alongside the first part by giving their personal reactions as they
detailed the events that were taking place. Elsewhere, some candidates also acquitted
themselves well by addressing the ‘what happens’, before writing separately on their
thoughts and feelings. To fully access the top two bands it was essential that candidates
attempted the personal response element of the task. As ever, those candidates who offered
a similar personal response throughout – in this case, it tended to be that they felt fear for
Max or for Max and his family – limited the extent to which they could score. There were
several valid and more specific personal interpretations which were available for
commentary here and some candidates were able to offer alternative reactions for individual
pieces of evidence. For example, some discussed their respect for Walter and what he was
trying to do whilst admitting their shock that he would be wearing a Nazi uniform; some felt
relief for Max and an awareness of the depth of the friendship of the two boys whilst also
expressing deep sadness for his mother. The nature of this extract prompted some very
varied responses from the reader many of which were thought provoking and demonstrated
genuine engagement with the text.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
Section B
Candidates complete one assignment from a choice of five in this section and, as ever, there
was a variety of task types in order to offer room for interpretation and different narrative
approaches. The question is worth half of the marks available on the paper and as such
some time should be taken in the preparatory stages. As with the summer series, there was
more evidence of students devoting some time to the planning of their work and this certainly
aided some as they clearly gave thought to their narrative outcome in advance of writing. I
was a little concerned that a minority of candidates may have taken their preparation a little
far however, as one or two provided a complete first draft of their work before then writing a
‘best’ version. This clearly cut down the time available to them and seemed a strange way of
prioritising their work.
As ever, much of the best work came from candidates who were drawing upon personal
experience or at least writing about situations and characters familiar to them. Using such
scenarios and well-formed characters often seems to enable a candidate to write
convincingly and provides a natural structure to their work. It seems to be work that is based
on personal experience that is most often able to engage the reader and create a connection
between them and the writer.
A Principal Examiner’s report would not be complete without mentioning the problems
caused through technically inaccurate writing and this series was by no means exempt from
this. For candidates who did not score well in this section it was often as a result of limited
punctuation and grammar which affected a narrative’s coherence. Sometimes this was as a
result of the pursuit of ambitious sentencing when the basics were not in place but more
often it was as a result of work dominated by comma splicing, the inaccurate construction of
sentences and fairly awkward and limited expression. As previous reports have mentioned,
sentences are neither meaningful nor coherent when the basics are not in place. The
organisation of writing is also important and, at times, a limited awareness of paragraphing
was detrimental to the structure of writing. For many candidates commitment and
enthusiasm was not in doubt – indeed in some cases candidates produced four or five sides
of writing in answer to Section B. However, examiners often found themselves wishing that
some of these very dedicated students could spend a little more time thinking about the
accuracy of their writing. They may have found it more profitable to manage their time to
write a little less and check a little more.
Finally, as ever on this type of paper there were examples of very short pieces of writing.
This seemed to sometimes be because of limited time management skills and candidates
over-running on Section A or more generally due to a lack of ideas and preparation. Clearly,
unsustained work does not allow candidates the opportunity to demonstrate their skills or
fully access the marking criteria. Like last November’s entry, some candidates were also not
aided by submitting unfinished work – often as a result of taking on a tale which proved too
large in scope or because they gave excessive attention to the opening stages of a narrative
at the expense of the story as a whole.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
4
The Section B questions were as follows:
(a)
Write about a time when you felt nervous
This question proved a popular choice, with many candidates able to draw upon
personal experience to produce engaging and logically structured accounts. The task
required an autobiographical approach, and it was perhaps understandable given the
nature of many of the entries for a November paper, that many candidates elected to
write about their experiences in exam situations. For some, the logical extension of
this was results day nerves and their feelings on opening that highly anticipated
envelope. Much of this work was straightforward, reasonably organised and realistic.
(b)
Continue the following:
Alex had not meant to cause trouble but...
This question was a popular choice and generated a wide range of enthusiastic
responses. Alex was a troublemaker of various proportions, sometimes female,
sometimes male. There were tales of misbehaviour ranging from harmless
cheekiness to more sinister law breaking. The question allowed for some attention to
character development and many candidates did try hard to fulfil this aspect, creating
something of history for Alex and, at times, his relationship with the narrator. A few
depicted Alex as somewhat misunderstood – someone who always gets the blame
and is often little more than always in the wrong place at the wrong time! Generally
these tales were engaging and entertaining but their flaw was often in controlling the
extent of the plot. In capable hands, these involved contained incidents that were
clearly and entertainingly resolved within the extent of the story.
(c)
Write a story which ends with the following:
in the end it was worth taking the chance.
While not the most popular option, there were a few candidates who elected to
respond to this story ending. In the majority of cases it did not lead to the most
convincing work. Too often the ending appeared to have been ‘bolted on’ as an
afterthought when the story had taken a different direction to the one which was
perhaps originally anticipated. There were a number of stories which appeared to
conclude before this final line was subsequently added leaving the marker perplexed
as to what the ‘chance’ was that had been worth taking. In a few cases it appeared
that stories were pre-prepared by candidates and slotted in with little sense of the title
ever having been a consideration. This was not a well-received tactic and it proved
difficult to credit this type of work as original or a response to the question set –
which first and foremost, this piece must be.
(d)
A day to remember
This was a reasonably popular task and again seemed to encourage an
autobiographical response. Many candidates wrote about days which were
memorable for positive reasons. Family days out, special occasions like birthdays
and weddings, and tales of sporting or academic triumph all featured prominently.
These were generally engaging and written with enthusiasm. Some limitations more
often seen in the responses to this task came from the candidate’s desire to
communicate the key events of the day. This perhaps led to some action-driven
narratives with limitations in the ‘fleshing out’ of detail and development of character
proving somewhat detrimental to the marks available.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5
(e)
The Storm.
This was a popular option and produced some quite creative writing. Many
candidates wrote of a literal storm and this encouraged some nicely descriptive work
and some thoughtful development of quite simple plots relating to characters
experiencing some difficulty or, in one or two cases, excitement at the event of a
storm. Elsewhere, more metaphorical storms were on offer – the storm of an
argument proved quite popular and there were one or two instances of military
action. The arguments in particular produced fairly self-contained but dramatic
narrative work.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
6
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Level 1 / Level 2 Certificate
November 2015
PAPER 2
Principal Examiner:
Rob Lewis
The challenge of satisfying the requirements of an untiered paper was met by the two texts,
which clearly engaged the candidates and provided few barriers to understanding across the
ability range. The subject was badger culling and the sources were a BBC News article by
David Bailey, An evening in the cull zone with the wounded badger patrollers and a Mail
Online article, Why Culling Badgers is an Expensive Waste of Time, by Michael Hanlon.
Most candidates were able to provide relevant responses to the questions although there
were many instances of limited coverage. There were also those who presented well-crafted
points in considerable detail but just did not cover a wide enough range as well as some
who, unfortunately, repeated points and gained no further marks for their efforts. There were
again, some cases of bullet pointing in evidence and in question three, which asked for an
assessment of the writer’s techniques, there were, unfortunately, a number of instances of
feature spotting where there was often insufficient attention paid to the text, or the writer’s
arguments.
A1
The first question was based on the first paragraph of the online article by Michael Hanlon.
This was a straightforward opening question, which saw most candidates off to a good start.
Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) could be identified as a contagious disease in cattle which can be
carried by badgers and be passed from cattle to cattle or from badgers to cattle.
Furthermore, it can be passed on when animals are in close contact with each other. Cattle
are infected by breathing in droplets from infected animals. It could be noted that cows
infected by bTB have to be destroyed and that large numbers of cows, even whole herds
can become infected. Resultantly, candidates could note that there has been badger culling
to try to prevent the spread of the disease but that some people argue that badger culling is
ineffective and oppose it. There are still candidates who seem unaware of the mark
structure; this is a question worth five marks and some responses were far too long and
detailed, often leading to subsequent responses being brief.
A2
This question, based on paragraph two of Michael Hanlon’s article, asked candidates to
consider Hanlon’s attitudes towards bTB and the proposed cull of badgers. Here, careful
tracking through the paragraph was beneficial. Candidates were able to discover that
Hanlon’s sympathies at first were with the farmers who almost all support a cull and that he
‘strongly suspected’ that sympathy for badgers by opponents of culling was due to
sentimentality. Furthermore, he thought that bTB was a ‘terrible disease’ which is ‘on the
increase’. He is alarmed by the increase in bTB from 1996 to 2010 and refers to alarming
statistics. He has ‘no doubt’ that bTB can be spread from badgers to cattle and that this is
happening and he is aware that if badgers ceased to exist in the UK then the bTB problem in
cattle would be ‘much reduced’. He concludes the paragraph by stating that Government
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
7
support for culling seemed to be justified. There were some excellent responses to this
question but in a number of cases candidates covered too little ground to achieve top marks.
A thorough and methodical approach was best here.
A3
This question is based on the rest of the online newspaper article by Michael Hanlon and
states that Michael Hanlon has ‘changed his mind’ and no longer supports badger culling. It
then asks how he persuades us that he is right not to support badger culling. Better
responses achieved a detailed exploration of the text and clear analysis of inference, and
there were some worthwhile responses to Hanlon’s selection of language and method.
Weaker responses became over concerned with feature spotting, often at the expense of
detailed textual reference, and there was some assertion without evidence. A number of
candidates were determined to prove that Hanlon employs emotive language, despite his
claim to have changed his opinion due to ‘scientific evidence’, and careful analysis of how he
uses evidence to prove his case was the key to success.
Hanlon emphasises that he has been persuaded by the scientific arguments rather than
being influenced by celebrities such as Brian May of Queen. He announces that there is the
‘Good News’ that culling works –‘but sadly’ – ‘survivors were found to flee into neighbouring
non-cull zones, causing an increase in TB infection’ there. His conclusion is that, overall,
culling doesn’t make any difference. He condemns culling as ‘an expensive waste of time’.
Furthermore, he believes that culling will cause suffering in the badger population. Hanlon
believes that ‘it is now quite hard to find a scientist who agrees’ with the official Government /
DEFRA view that culling can cause a 16% reduction in TB. He says we do not know how
many badgers we need to kill because no one knows how many badgers are out there.
(‘One condition of the cull is that 70% of the badger population is destroyed, but 70% of
what?’). He cites Dr. Rowland Kao who points out that ‘much of the alleged increase in cattle
TB is due to far more careful testing,’ and ‘go looking for an infection more frequently and
you will find more sick animals.’ Hanlon asserts that culling costs a lot of money and is not a
good deal for the taxpayer and he cites Professor John Mcinerney to show that it is cheaper
to compensate farmers than carry out a cull. He asserts that ‘Vaccination of badgers and
cattle is probably a much better bet’. Hanlon believes that ‘The mood against culling badgers
is hardening’ and refers to how ‘32 scientists, including some of the world’s leading animal
disease experts, wrote to the Observer denouncing the plans for a ‘mindless’ badger cull’
Finally, he suggests that farmers, almost all of whom support the culls are influenced by fear
of financial hardship and of losing their herds and so he understands why they support
culling.
Candidates who commented specifically on Hanlon’s methods may have deduced that he
deliberately undermines his ‘Good news’ of a reduction of disease in culling areas with the
evidence of an increase in infection in surrounding areas. Some students mentioned his
ironic or sarcastic tone here. His use of language can be seen to be critical rather than
balanced as he refers to culling as an ‘expensive waste of time’ and echoes a reference by
scientists to a ‘mindless badger cull’ Hanlon also refers to animal welfare issues and how
culling causes suffering; the use of emphasis in ‘will cause suffering’ is assertive rather than
emotive.
Hanlon also casts doubt on Government claims and statistics (16% reduction / 70% of
what?) about culling and therefore casts doubt on the credibility of the cull. He cites an
expert, Dr. Kao, to question Government figures about the alleged increase in TB in cattle,
and another expert, Professor Mcinerney to show that culling is more expensive than
compensation. It was frustrating that some students clearly identified the use of experts yet
didn’t go on to discuss their findings and how these supported Hanlon’s views. He provides
strong evidence that the weight of expert scientific opinion is against the cull – '32
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
8
scientists...........’ They are ‘experts’ and ‘of great importance’ – including Presidents of the
Royal Society.
Finally, Hanlon acknowledges that most farmers ‘passionately support a cull’, but
undermines this by stating that they ‘are influenced by stress, anxiety and fear of financial
hardship if they lose their herds.’ Furthermore, ‘they share only a small proportion of the
culling costs’.
A4
This question, based on the first four paragraphs of David Bailey’s article, asked what do
Alex Blundell and Caroline Allen think and feel about the badger culls? Here, candidates
were required to track through the section to consider different points of view. Most
candidates were able to engage well with this question, more successful answers being
methodical, well-organised and offering appropriate evidence regarding thoughts and
feelings. Candidates were rewarded for overview points so that both Alex Blundell and
Caroline Allen were seen as being strongly opposed to culling and, ‘prepared to go to
extreme lengths to save badgers’. Additionally as members of the wounded Badger Patrol,
they think culling badgers is ‘completely the wrong thing to do’ and is ‘completely pointless’.
Less successful answers tended to conflate the different viewpoints.
Alex Blundell (and his partner –not, as some thought, Caroline Allen) were shown to feel so
strongly they normally get a babysitter to look after their young child so they can attend the
patrols. Alex is ‘disappointed’ that signing petitions and writing to politicians has not worked
and he and his partner want to do something ‘within the law’ and to ‘make a stand’. Alex
feels lack of sleep is worth it because they feel they are making a difference, in fact, saving
even one badger’s life is worth it (all the evenings spent on patrol). He feels that if it is a
quiet night and no badgers or shooters are seen then ‘that did not make the patrol a waste of
time’ and it doesn’t mean that they haven’t stopped badgers being shot. He thought that it’s
a good thing because they are doing their job.
Caroline Allen stated that she wants ‘to support the protesters’ as thinks the cull is
‘unscientific, wrong and inhumane’. As a vet she is ‘completely against the cull’ and so is
‘disgusted’ that The British Veterinary Association has shown its support. She doesn’t want
to see TB and she wants to support farmers but she thinks the cull is ‘absolutely the wrong
way’ of going about solving the TB problem. She thinks that when you graduate as a vet you
make a promise that you will ‘put animal welfare ahead of everything’ and her view is that
the Government’s chief vet in DEFRA and the vets in The British Veterinary Association
have failed to ‘put animal welfare ahead of everything’ and failed in that promise.
A5
This question, requiring details from both texts, was testing candidates’ ability to locate,
select and collate material purposefully. There was no instruction to compare the
texts/writers. The question stated that both articles explain the views of different people and
organisations for and against badger culling and asked, what are these views? Candidates
were asked to organise their answers into two paragraphs using the headings:
 Those in favour of culling badgers
 Those who disagree with culling badgers
Candidates were asked to make it clear in their answer which text they were taking
information from. Better answers revealed careful reading of question and text and provided
suitable evidence, attributed to specific sources, clearly identifying which text the information
was from. There were some excellent and thorough responses which achieved full marks.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
9
Some students included paragraphs of evidence to support each individual source and,
resultantly, achieved only limited coverage. Loss of marks in this question was principally
due to not identifying texts, and in some cases, not identifying sources. It is essential, in this
question, that texts are identified.
In the Mail Online article, culling is identified as a Government scheme, and additionally, the
Environment Secretary announced that culling would go ahead. DEFRA thinks a 16%
reduction in bovine TB can be achieved by culling, farmers ‘passionately support a cull’ and
Hanlon initially supports culling before he changes his mind, having looked at the evidence.
Those candidates who could identify both Hanlon’s viewpoints, with evidence were given
credit for this.
In The BBC News article, Parliament and the Government supported culling and permitted
culls to go ahead in February 2013. Additionally, The British Veterinary Association has
shown their support of culling and DEFRA has allowed culling to be carried out. The NFU
president said ‘there is no other choice’ and that he was confident that culling badgers would
‘help to deliver a reduction of TB in cattle’.
Students were given credit for identifying that DEFRA, the Government and the farmers
were in favour of culling in both articles.
In The Mail Online article, Brian May of Queen is a celebrity activist passionately opposed to
badger culling and 32 leading scientists wrote to The Observer denouncing the badger cull.
Lord John Krebs is named and chief scientists and Presidents of the Royal Society are
mentioned – all opposed to a ‘mindless’ badger cull. Michael Hanlon having reviewed the
scientific evidence opposes culling and Dr. Rowland Kao has cast doubt upon the statistical
evidence which supports it.
In the BBC News Article, the Wounded Badger Patrol members are united against badger
culling and Alex Blundell is a representative member, and members of the Green Party
‘support the protesters.’ Caroline Allen, who was protesting, is national spokeswoman on
animal issues for the Green Party.
B1 (a)
This question invites candidates to produce a discursive essay without specifying specific
purpose, format and audience. It was felt that it was important to offer one title which
enabled candidates to draw upon materials they had read in Section A, had they so wished.
The question asked if Britain is really a nation of animal lovers. Less successful responses
were heavily dependent on the source material, not really moving beyond a discussion of
badger culling and often heavily reliant upon information about ‘The Wounded Badger
Patrol’. Successful responses were wide ranging, including some interesting comments from
candidates who clearly spent some time each year in other countries where they had
witnessed far less caring attitudes towards animals. On balance, Britain was seen as a
nation of animal lovers, many candidates commenting on the pampered way in which pets
are treated and the multitude of pet products and veterinary services available. Some
acutely sharp comments identified the double standards that exist when many people are
happy to accept factory farming whilst indulging their pets. Others saw the many cruelties
that are inherent in society, from the extremes of hunting to the ways in which animals are
forced to undertake repetitive tasks. Animal charities were given much praise.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
10
B1 (b)
The second option proved to be the more popular choice. The question was intended to
introduce an issue that would be particularly relevant to candidates, in this case, ‘What do
you think are the best and worst aspects of being a teenager today?’. Most candidates were
able to present a very clear view of the advantages and disadvantages of teenage life; some
focused on its darker aspects; knife crime, pressure to smoke and take drugs, bullying and
gangs. Some went into detail about cyber bullying and the potential to self-harm. There was
an acceptance that it was difficult not to conform to mass tastes and discussion about
pressure on girls (in particular) to take on the expected shape, weight and appearance.
Some less trying disadvantages were too much homework, the pressure from exams and
having to help out with family chores. Many felt that exams were getting harder.
There were, however, a majority of responses which were positive and enthusiastic about
teenage life. Whilst recognising that there were problems, many saw teenage life as an
idyllic time when you could have fun, go to parties, make new friends and not have to take
on too many responsibilities. There was the thrill of the first relationship and even the first
kiss. Many saw life as easier for them than it was for teenagers in past generations and
there was often the celebration of a more equal society where you were allowed to be who
you wished to be. A number of candidates were looking forward to the opportunity to drive,
school was unvaryingly seen as a helpful and supportive place with friendly, caring teachers,
and above all there was the excitement of moving forward into new experiences and having
most of your life still to enjoy.
B2
This piece of writing presents the candidates with a purpose, format and audience in order to
meet the basic criteria for Content and Organisation. In this case candidates were asked to
write a formal letter to the Play Co-ordinator at the local council, applying for a job as
assistant to the play leaders in ‘an exciting variety of indoor and outdoor activities’.
Candidates were informed that ‘enthusiasm, ability to work with children and adults and a
pleasant manner are important’. There was a wide range of responses, reflecting different
levels of ability and understanding of the question. The very best responses were fully aware
of the format of a business letter, full and fluent and making use of well-judged details. It was
entirely appropriate for candidates to refer to their babysitting experiences, work with youth
groups and with adults, helping younger people through charitable causes and other likely
activities which would provide helpful experience in their understanding of young children.
Slightly less plausible was that some claimed to be heads of department in a school, to have
a number of degrees and other qualifications and yet they were applying for an assistant
play-leader’s role. A number of candidates produced very brief-work which was selfpenalising. It was frustrating to note that many of these candidates could have written less
for B1 (and still completed adequate work overall) in order to write a fuller and more
appropriate B2.
As mentioned in past reports, for Level 1 / Level 2 Certificate and the GCSE English
examinations, the reluctance to write in paragraphs and frequent technical insecurities
continue to be issues which cost many candidates valuable marks. Basic sentence control,
capital letter use, spelling and punctuation are often very weak indeed. The use of
inappropriate abbreviations, particularly ‘etc.’ and ‘e.g.’ is on the increase. It is always worth
reinforcing to candidates the value of a quick proof-read to eliminate careless errors, thereby
gaining an extra mark or two for improved coherence and accuracy. As mentioned above,
there were also some very brief responses, which were invariably self-limiting. Hand-writing
which is barely decipherable might also affect the mark an examiner can realistically award
as the quality of the content is hard to judge and the accuracy of the spelling, in particular, is
called into question.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
11
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Level 1 / Level 2 Certificate
November 2015
SPEAKING AND LISTENING
Principal Examiner:
Lesley Hancock
Administration
As part of the Speaking and Listening cross-moderation programme, which ensures that
each centre receives an advisory visit every three years, a number were visited by their
designated consultative moderators. Level 1/2 Certificate is sometimes offered alongside
GCSE and/or Functional Skills English but can also be the only KS4 exam course for which
candidates are entered at the centre.
The opportunity to discuss task setting and assessment with a representative from WJEC
can be very useful for centres, especially those who are offering the specification for the first
time, and advice was gratefully received on the whole. As in previous years, however,
moderators noted that visits tended to be more effective and helpful to centres if a clear
outline of the proposed activities had been submitted before the visit. This meant that any
issues relating to task setting could be highlighted in advance so that less time was wasted
during the actual visit.
Records and Outline Forms
All centres entering candidates in November are required to send their consultative
moderators an outline of activities form for each class and a sample of five candidates’
records for each teacher by early November. WJEC sends a circular to centres reminding
them of this requirement both at the start of the academic year.
Unfortunately, some moderators did not receive all the necessary paperwork by the deadline
and had to contact the centres’ exams officers to request the outline forms and records. In
general, the forms had been satisfactorily completed but some descriptions of the tasks were
rather brief, making it difficult for the moderator to assess their appropriateness. Each centre
receives a written report from the moderator on their documentation which is posted to the
centre along with the returned records. This gives moderators an opportunity to advise all
centres on task setting and record-keeping and a copy of this report is sent to the WJEC.
Task Setting
In general, task setting was appropriate in all three skills areas.
Individual Presentations with Questions
Moderators’ comments suggest that the most effective presentations are given by
candidates who are genuinely interested in their chosen topics and can communicate their
enthusiasm to the audience. Reading from prepared scripts, rather than using prompt cards
or other aides-memoire, can make this vital audience engagement more difficult to achieve,
and moderators advised against this rather limiting approach; those who read their
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
12
presentations, either from a paper script or PowerPoint slides were unlikely to demonstrate
the skills needed for Bands 5 or 6. The most successful candidates had a clear sense of
audience and purpose whereas those who gave a more straightforward show-and-tell
presentation struggled to demonstrate the complex ideas and sophisticated strategies
needed to meet higher band requirements.
Group work
Moderators saw a range of effective approaches to group work and a wide variety of topics
tackled, many centering on issues directly related to the local community or the
school/college. Such tasks have the benefit of allowing all candidates to contribute and
giving them some material to draw on without extensive research. However, it can be helpful
to candidates aiming at Bands 5 and 6 if the task has some element of complexity and
challenge. This was achieved in some centres via the adoption of roles whereby more
confident candidates could take on the task of chairing the discussion as a local councillor or
MP, for instance, so that more sophisticated interacting and listening skills could be
demonstrated.
Pair work
This skills area works best when carefully planned and when the two candidates are wellmatched and work effectively together. If the candidates are aiming at Band 5 and 6, it is
also helpful if the task involves some debate or disagreement. For instance, a pair
discussing the planning of an event, such as a school prom, might not have the opportunity
to demonstrate the challenging of assumptions and resolving of differences needed for
higher bands. Such a task could be “tweaked” to make it a discussion in which a student
representative tries to persuade the head teacher or principal that the prom should go
ahead.
Some effective tasks which moderators have observed include:




discussion based on a set text debating which character/event was most important or
pivotal in the book or play
analysing a pair of poems and deciding which would be most suitable for a teenage
anthology
debating whether or not mobile phones should be allowed at school with each
candidate taking a different stance
Discussing the presentation of soldiers in propaganda/army recruitment posters and
war photography
Assessment
The full range of ability was represented in visits and moderators were generally in close
agreement with the centre’s assessment of their students. Marking was mostly fair and
consistent and close reference to the assessment criteria was made throughout. The WJEC
standardisation DVD had been used by centres visited to inform their own marking.
It was very clear from their reports that moderators had found visits both enjoyable and
reassuring.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
13
WJEC
245 Western Avenue
Cardiff CF5 2YX
Tel No 029 2026 5000
Fax 029 2057 5994
E-mail: [email protected]
website: www.wjec.co.uk
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.