GCSE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
ENGLISH AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE
(ENGLAND/OUT OF WALES)
NOVEMBER 2013
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Grade Boundaries
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. This will be available at:
http://www.wjec.co.uk/index.php?nav=51
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
ENGLISH/ENGLISH LANGUAGE
General Certificate of Secondary Education
November 2013
Chair of Examiners:
Mr. B.J.D. Childs
Chief Examiner:
Dr. K.C. Elliott
Principal Examiners:
Mr. E. Snell
Principal Moderators:
Mr. S.H. Sage
Mrs J Swain
Mrs. J. Hingley
FOUNDATION TIER
Unit 1 (Reading)
Animals and conservation have always been popular subjects with young people and the
texts selected for this exam offered candidates the opportunity to engage with both. The
newspaper article, written by Frank Gardner, captured neatly the writer’s sense of awe at
being so close to mountain gorillas in their natural surroundings, at the same time exploring
some of his feelings about the ways in which his personal circumstances made his journey
so memorable. The other text, a factsheet from the World Wide Fund for Nature, offered a
clear view of exactly why mountain gorillas continue to be critically endangered. Taken
together, they seemed to engage candidates and most offered responses that reflected their
engagement. The questions followed a familiar format that would have surprised few
candidates but they allowed opportunities to demonstrate a range of reading skills
appropriate for the tier. Most candidates completed all of the questions but there were still
too many who struggled to manage their time successfully and examiners reported that
some candidates had not always read the instructions and questions carefully enough to
ensure their responses were focused on the correct section of text or that they had included
enough detail or explanation to warrant good marks.
Q.1
This question asked candidates to read the WWF factsheet and list ten threats facing
mountain gorillas. As I have advised in previous reports, where the question asks
candidates to ‘list’ their answers, numbering or bullet-pointing is the easiest way to
proceed, though some candidates still write a paragraph or two that may or may not
contain all the details required. It was certainly the case that I saw papers where
candidates had written a full page answer to this question that did not contain ten
threats to gorillas. There is no requirement to write in full sentences, but it is
important that candidates include sufficient detail for the response to make sense
and there were too many that offered one-word responses that failed to answer the
question. In some cases, taking this rather minimalist approach cost candidates
valuable marks: writing ‘antelope’, ‘oil’ or ‘habitat’ was simply not precise enough to
earn a mark.
Good candidates quickly gained good marks for this question by working through the
text methodically, noting the threats to the mountain gorillas as they went along, and
many found no difficulty in amassing the full ten marks available.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
Readers are told the mountain gorilla is ‘among the most endangered species in the
world’ and some candidates offered statistics in the article to prove this. In the
second sentence we are told that ‘humans remain the gorillas greatest threat’ and
there is a specific example given of the threat hunters pose, as some will kill gorillas,
selling body parts as trophies. We are also told that leopards also pose a threat.
Most candidates were able to track the details in the early section of the text but
some weaker readers struggled to separate the details of the threats to gorillas from
some of the other details about them. Some responses suggested that candidates
had ‘lost’ the question and instead offered facts about them, telling examiners about
their eating habits, about their attraction to tourists.
Those candidates who kept focused were able to see that the threats to gorillas were
many and often came as a consequence of other circumstances. Many saw that
poaching was one threat but the risk of wars in the region also threatened their
existence. Baby gorillas were often taken to sell to zoos or even to sell as pets but
this sometimes also resulted in the death of adult male gorillas who defend their
young to the death. It was important for candidates to recognise that some precision
was necessary as they selected relevant details. For example, candidates were
rewarded for including the threat posed by humans who might pass on diseases
when they visited the gorillas. Those who simply wrote ‘disease’ as a threat gained
no reward. Similarly, the text explained that even a cold was a potential threat to
gorillas; those who misread this and wrote about cold weather as a threat gained no
reward. With careful tracking and selection, many gained full marks for this question
but there were rather too many instances where a lack of precision or the
determination to only offer a one-word response cost candidates valuable marks.
Q.2
This question asked candidates to explain what Frank Gardner thinks and feels in the
first page of the newspaper article. Again, this will have been a familiar question to
most candidates but required some careful tracking of the text and some explanation
of his thoughts and feelings. Perhaps the first thing to say about this question is that
examiners saw too many candidates rush into a response without reading the
instructions which asked for answers based on just the first page. Too many wrote
responses that included details from the second page of the article, and this meant
too little time was given to careful reading of the correct section and valuable time
being spent focusing on material that gained no reward.
For those who spent all of the available time on the correct section of text, there was
plenty to say and almost all responses were clear that Gardner was very positive
about having the chance to visit Rwanda. Many said he was excited at the prospect
of the trip, echoing his wife’s words, that he had “always wanted to see the mountain
gorillas”. He writes about how he felt the long journey was ‘exhausting’ but then
reflects about how his disability had led him to believe he would never actually be
able to make a journey into difficult terrain. Some candidates wrote about his
feelings of regret at not going before he was injured but noted that he also thought
the declining numbers meant that he would probably never get the opportunity to see
them in the wild. Good candidates took the time and effort to explain his feelings at
this point in the text and gained reward for doing so. Some weaker readers could
see something of how he felt but struggled to explain, instead relying just on
selecting a line or two of the text to do the job. Similarly, explaining his curiosity
about exactly how the tour company would transport him into ‘gorilla territory’ was
often beyond weaker readers, some of whom copied out the appropriate part of the
text, but without explanation.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
Candidates who worked methodically through the text were able to track his
changing thoughts and feelings effectively. They saw, for example, his amusement
at how his disability caused the embarrassment of airport staff, unused to dealing
with wheelchair-bound passengers or his pleasure at simply enjoying the sun and the
wildlife while he waited to gain clearance from the airport.
It was important for candidates to look at each paragraph, and some failed to do this,
opting instead for just the most obvious details about how he felt. Those who worked
methodically, noted that in the penultimate paragraph he felt uncomfortable on the
journey to Virunga Lodge but thought the views gained on the journey were
‘beautiful’. When he reached Virunga Lodge he wrote about how he was surprised
by the luxury of the place. In the final paragraph, he is a mixture of emotions that
keep him awake and most candidates recognised that although he was excited at the
prospect of the next day, he was worried about whether he would actually get to see
the gorillas at all, and in particular whether the porters would be able to cope with his
disability on a difficult trek.
Good candidates used the question to help them frame their responses, often using
‘he thinks...’ and ‘he feels...’ frequently in their responses, but good responses also
recognised the need to explain and expand on some of the details and it was this,
along with careful tracking of the details, that pushed these responses into the top
band of marks.
Q.3
In some ways this question might be regarded as the most demanding on the paper,
as it required candidates to consider the writer’s craft, in particular how Gardner tried
to capture the awe and wonder he felt at seeing the mountain gorillas in their natural
environment. However, those candidates who were able to select appropriate detail
and then go on to explain or comment on the impact made good progress. As the
Higher Tier report on a similar question makes clear, examiners are not interested in
feature-spotting for its own sake, but want to reward candidates who are able to
explore and comment on the text.
When Gardner is woken at 5am, the guide for the expedition tells him about the
group of gorillas they will be tracking. Many candidates commented on the large
number in the group, suggesting the day was full of promise for Gardner and would
make him feel there was a good chance of actually getting close to them. Almost all
responses selected some detail about the way Gardner was transported and
comments such as ‘he felt like royalty’ sensibly linked to relevant quotations. Many
also commented on the photograph of Gardner, where he is clearly enjoying being
carried aloft, a broad smile on his face.
As the journey proceeds and the party get close to the gorillas, Gardner captures the
excitement and sense of anticipation he feels when he writes, “the most exciting
moment of the whole trip arrived.” In giving the details of what happens from that
point on, good candidates made apt selections from the text, commenting on how he
“hardly dared to breathe.” One candidate commented on the impact of this by
saying, “this suggests that he could almost not believe how close he now was to the
gorillas”. Some noted that Gardner made a point of saying how close he was to the
gorillas – just ten feet away and most candidates were at least able to see that for
Gardner to come face to face with a silverback was a significant moment in the whole
trip. Whilst some were only able to repeat Gardner’s words that it was “an incredible
privilege to stare into the eyes of a wild yet docile creature”, more able candidates
tried to comment on the importance of that moment, some even linking it back to the
doubts he had the previous evening.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
In the final paragraph there were lots of details for good candidates to comment on:
his lack of fear at being so close to such a large wild animal, his enjoyment of the
baby gorillas playing close to his wheelchair and his description of the silverback
simply ignoring all the attention and stretching and yawning “as if on a sunlounger”.
Candidates gained reward for the appropriate selection of textual detail, and
especially if they could comment on the impact on Gardner but there was also
reward for those able and prepared to comment on the language he uses to describe
such a memorable experience. Lots of candidates noted the words such as
‘enchanted’ or ‘spell-bound’, with better responses commenting on how they
captured Gardner’s sense of awe or made him feel humble.
It is probably true that this type of question effectively differentiates between those
candidates who can only select the details and those who are able to push on to
explore the impact of them, but there are still too many who believe that questions of
this sort can be answered by focusing on feature-spotting. Those candidates who
spent time explaining that the alliteration in “baby balls of black fur...” showed how
wonderful Gardner thought his day was, would have had more success if they had
explored Gardner’s use of ‘tumbled and frolicked’ to describe the baby gorillas’ play,
as his choice of verbs shows how and why he was ‘spell-bound’ by their antics. If
candidates tackling this type of question begin by focusing on the content and details
of what the writer tells us, and try to comment on the impact they will always begin to
accumulate marks. If they are then able to comment on the writer’s use of words and
phrases, they will gain further reward. There were many good responses to this
question that gained marks in the top band but still too many brief, unfocused
responses that suggested candidates were still unclear about exactly how to
approach this type of question.
Q.4
As in previous examinations across both Higher and Foundation Tier, candidates are
required to make comparisons or collate information from different sources.
Questions of this type do not require particularly lengthy answers, but rather they
need precision and clarity. In this paper, candidates were asked to compare details
from each of the texts under three separate headings. The instructions in the
question made it clear that responses had to indicate clearly from which text
information was drawn from; some candidates ignored this. However, this type of
question has appeared in every recent paper and most candidates showed they were
pretty well versed in organising the material.
Probably the most sensible approach was to make use of the headings that were
given and under each heading deal with the details relating to each text. Under the
heading, ‘the foods they eat’, most candidates noted that the factsheet indicated that
gorillas ate mostly plant stems but also occasionally added insects to their diet.
Moving to Gardner’s newspaper article, most candidates used the details in the first
paragraph of the second page to select ‘200 species of plants’ and also ‘red ants’.
More careful readers were also able to gain reward if they noted that text mentioned
one of the silverbacks chewing on a bamboo shoot, and that the baby gorillas
stopped their playing to eat the wild celery growing around them.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
4
Almost all candidates spotted the discrepancy in the details in the two texts about the
age at which gorillas become silverbacks, the factsheet saying between 7-9 years
and the article giving the age as 12 years. The final part of the question asked
candidates to compare what the two texts said about the size of the gorilla
population. In each of the texts, information included surveys of the population that
had been taken at different times. In the WWF factsheet, the figure had been as low
as 782, although a more recent survey put the figure as 880. In Gardner’s article, he
had written about a survey in 1989 that reported the numbers being 620. Gardner’s
guide later told him that numbers had increased but were still fewer than 800.
Candidates were rewarded for each correct detail, though the last figure was only
rewarded if candidates said there were fewer than 800.
Many candidates gained full marks for the question, though some lost marks
because they failed to indicate which text contained which detail. Others failed to
complete the question, or in some cases misjudged their time so badly they did not
get to the question.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5
Unit 2 (Writing)
Although tackled in a different order from candidates on the Higher Tier, the two tasks were
broadly similar across the tiers, and the messages in the Higher Tier report apply equally to
candidates who took the Foundation Tier examination. Candidates have about thirty
minutes to plan, write and check each of the two responses, which should give enough time
to produce work of a reasonable length and of a quality that represents their best work.
Although not marked, spending a few minutes planning what is to go into each piece of work
can be very valuable in helping candidates organise and structure their work. Weaker
candidates often struggle to write at sufficient length. This is sometimes not because they
lack ideas or points of view, but often because they fail to develop or expand their ideas in
their writing and this is where a few minutes thinking through how to develop each point,
before they actually begin writing, could be helpful. Some of the planning seen in papers
continues to rely on the use of acronyms and a steely determination to shoehorn into every
piece of writing alliteration, statistics (often unrealistic) and ‘the rule of three’, rather than
focusing on expanding ideas and, as I reported in the summer, too many seem to spend
their time trying to recall what each letter represents instead of focusing on developing ideas
for content.
Q.1
The first task asked candidates to write an article for a travel magazine about a place
that offers visitors a good day out. Candidates on the tier were given some
suggestions about the kind of place that might be a suitable subject and the topic
was similar to some of the writing tasks set over the last few years. That said, the
task was not exactly the same as previous ones and it was important for candidates
to read the task instructions carefully so that the writing could be planned with some
clarity about purpose and intended audience and the content could be shaped to the
needs of the reader. Too many failed to read the instructions carefully and produced
articles on places far beyond the scope of a day out. Holidays in Australia and
America were fairly frequent and I saw one response that tried to cover America and
Canada in a side and a half. Other candidates wrote about ‘the countryside’ or ‘the
seaside’ without a specific location in mind and struggled to bring any meaningful
content to the task and examiners frequently mentioned the ‘uneasy sense of task’ in
their summative comments.
The other area of concern noted by examiners were those responses that slipped
from an article into a more promotional type of response, and as in some of the
Higher Tier responses, adopted a corporate ‘we’ or ‘our’ approach more suited to an
advertisement.
For those who took the time to read the instructions carefully, there was the
opportunity to write in some detail about a place they knew well and perhaps offer
insights into some of the attractions. Understandably perhaps, London, Blackpool,
Alton Towers, along with home towns, other seaside resorts around the country and
some of the larger cities made up the bulk of responses, but smaller towns, other
theme parks, zoos and national parks all had some representation. The merit of the
task was that candidates could choose somewhere that they knew well. What was
perhaps surprising was that significant numbers found it difficult to develop very
much information or detail about the places they had chosen, and this is where a little
time planning the work helped some candidates. Most could include four or five of
the specific attractions of the place they had chosen to write about, but only the more
accomplished writers seemed able or willing to expand the detail.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
6
Too many mentioned the shopping opportunities available in towns and cities, but the
information tended to be restricted to a list of the more popular chain stores and little
about the ‘local flavour’ that many towns try to develop as a distinctive feature.
Similarly, lots of responses told readers about the range and number of restaurants
and cafes and high quality food available in their place for a good day out, but it was
very rare for a particular establishment to be mentioned by name and even rarer for
readers to be given any specific information about it.
Candidates who wrote about theme parks often at least mentioned specific rides,
occasionally with a little detail about the experience of the ride and those who kept
their intended audience in mind usually tried to explain the attractions for the different
generations in a family. Weaker writers often seemed to find themselves in the
position of mentioning attractions but actually having little to say about them. Being
told that the London Eye gives a good view of the city or that there are lots of rides at
Blackpool Pleasure Beach without any additional information would be of limited use
to readers but it also meant that these candidates found themselves quickly running
out of things to write about. Some resorted to bullet-pointing the list of attractions
and writing in very general, and sometimes vague, terms about why it was a good
place to visit.
In spite of some of the weaknesses seen in this task, it is important to report that
there were good responses that did capture a sense of place effectively. The best
ones seemed to select four or five attractions and then build a paragraph about each
attraction. For example, I saw one response where a paragraph about Camden
market in London included details of particular stalls that sold the widest range of
exotic foods and I was advised where I could find the cheapest and best place in the
whole of London for a mug of tea or coffee. Focusing on specific details was certainly
a feature of the best pieces and helped to push these into the top band for content
and organisation.
Q.2
The second writing task was to write a letter to a headteacher complaining about the
behaviour of pupils on their way to and from school. They were also invited to offer
suggestions about how the situation could be improved. There were many good
responses to this task, and there was a clarity about audience and purpose that was
sometimes missing in the first task.
Most candidates helped themselves by setting the letter out more or less correctly,
though some struggled with the format and others seemed unclear whether the
postcode appeared on the top line or somewhere else.
Candidates usually had plenty to say about the poor behaviour of pupils and where
this was structured into paragraphs, it often meant that the details of the pupils’
‘crimes’ could be expanded upon in some detail and to good effect. Many
complained about the noise pupils made on their way to school and the careless way
they dropped litter. As they warmed to the task, many students adopted a persona,
often a more elderly resident who was writing on behalf of the neighbours and this
usually worked well, with telling reflections along the lines of “it wasn’t like this in my
day!”
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
7
Litter and noise were the obvious crimes the writers complained about, but many
wanted to offer anecdotes about how they had politely mentioned the dropped crisp
packet, only to be met with a verbal assault and a string of swear words. Some
candidates drifted into the realms of the improbable, where the writer was virtually a
prisoner in their own home, afraid to venture out of the house at all and under siege
every day from rocks and stones that broke every window in the house and car.
The better pieces avoided these excesses and kept the recipient firmly in view, often
sympathetically remarking how the pupils’ behaviour let down what was an otherwise
outstanding school; one response that I saw even reminded the headteacher that the
poor behaviour witnessed by the writer could trigger an Ofsted inspection.
Complaining about the pupils was generally done successfully, though exploring
solutions proved more demanding and weaker writers sometimes offered unrealistic
solutions. To stop the litter that was the result of pupils smoking on their way to
school, some candidates suggested building a ‘smoking room’ in the school grounds.
Others suggested that the school should buy a fleet of buses to transport all pupils to
and from school, or that they should employ members of the police force to patrol the
streets around the school. Many offered to visit the school to talk personally to the
pupils or to discuss the matter in greater detail with the headteacher, whilst others
reminded the headteacher that if the problem was not quickly resolved, other
agencies would be involved; some even suggested the headteacher might lose his or
her job if the situation continued. As with higher tier candidates, those who felt the
need to include statistics or surveys of the local community in the letter often
weakened rather strengthened the content.
Many examiners commented positively on the tone and register of these letters and
often how well organised the material had been, even where on occasions the
content had exaggerated the problems. Many sought to adopt a measured tone and
to keep a fairly tight rein on their outrage and this often worked very well indeed,
especially where the letter concluded more in sorrow than in anger that the school’s
reputation was being tarnished by a few thoughtless pupils who were bringing its
good name into disrepute.
As in previous reports, it remains true that content and organisation of material
continues to be stronger than technical accuracy. Basic spelling and punctuation are
often still poor and frequently limit the overall mark. There seems to be no obvious
or immediate solution to this and it has certainly been a thread running through
virtually every examiner report over recent years. As we move towards new
examination specifications there is every suggestion that technical accuracy will be
given an even higher profile and candidates who can master and demonstrate the
basic skills will be well-placed to achieve success.
Finally, I should like to place on record my thanks to the examiners who work so hard
to complete the marking within a tight time frame and to the candidates who
overwhelmingly work hard in the examinations.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
8
HIGHER TIER
Unit 1 (Reading)
The summer paper was about Glastonbury which was described as ‘a national treasure’ and
I suppose the Grand National is similarly part of British culture and a landmark in the
national calendar, even if it was described as a ‘national disgrace’ in one of the texts. The
resource material offered clearly contrasting views of the event but it was demanding as a
test of understanding in that it required the candidates to follow two arguments. That said, it
was also accessible enough so that those who had been entered appropriately for this tier
should have coped perfectly well with what they were reading. Most of the candidates
seemed to be interested enough in the topic and most of them certainly wrote a lot. In a way
the material was as much about the issue of animal cruelty as it was about horse racing and
that made it interesting for most candidates. There were no real surprises in the questions
and it was again possible to structure the questions so that the candidates could tackle the
texts in manageable sections.
Q.1
This question was focused on a relatively short section of text and the candidates
only had to tackle twenty three lines of Peter Scudamore’s essay. There is always a
danger in trying to be helpful by limiting the scope of the question and some
candidates will stray outside the specified lines. However, this was a manageable
section of text. The wording of the question repeated last year when a similarly
worded question about Lewis Hamilton seemed to work well in helping the
candidates to focus on what I wanted from them. The better answers read
Scudamore’s vivid account of riding in the Grand National and selected relevant
details to show how it must feel to take part in the race.
Scudamore began his essay by describing his own experience of riding in the 1988
Grand National and, although he admitted that he was ‘moving easily’ and leading
the race, he makes it clear that it can ‘suddenly’ go wrong. The clear inference was
that the race is unpredictable, things can change in an instant and a rider has to be
prepared for the unexpected. Even when things are going well, there are no
certainties in this race.
The next two paragraphs of the essay focused on the danger of the race and the
fear experienced by the riders. These were key points in this answer and there was a
lot of evidence to support these inferences. Scudamore described the drop at
Becher’s Brook as ‘notorious’ and he emphasised the danger by describing how he
rolled into a ‘tight ball’ when he fell. The approaching hooves of the horses were a
‘deafening thunder’ and he escaped because he was lucky on that occasion. He
described a previous fall as ‘crashing’ and it left him with a broken nose and bruises.
The fences were described as ‘big and very challenging’. Later in the essay he
referred to the fact that every jockey knows they could be badly hurt and the ‘everpresent fear’ of stumbling over a loose horse. There was another inference to be
made here about the chaotic nature of the race and Scudamore explicitly mentioned
the fact that horses were ‘out of control.’
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
9
Most candidates scored their marks by focusing on fear and danger and a few got
the chaotic nature of the race but there were one or two more inferences which could
be drawn from the material. For example, Scudamore made it clear that the race was
frightening but also exciting and tense. He mentioned the ‘jangling nerves’ and the
‘adrenaline kicking in’ and he also described the tension as ‘electric’. He also
suggested how emotionally and psychologically demanding the race is for both
jockeys and horses and that some do not really cope with it. It is also loud and
noisy with the ‘thunder’ of hooves and the roars of a large crowd.
This was not a particularly difficult question but it was vital to make inferences and
not simply offer a jumble of quotations. Most scored quite well here, although not too
many reached the top band of marks.
Q.2
The best approach to this question was to track the text methodically and use thirdperson with the verbs ‘think’ and ‘feel’. Able candidates will always find their own way
to do things well but starting most sentences with ‘he thinks’ or ‘he feels’ was a
reliable method.
Of course, it was vital to follow what the writer was saying and sometimes the
thoughts and feelings were explicit and occasionally they were implicit. The best
answers handled both but there were some nuances and qualifications in what he
thought and felt about the Grand National. Scudamore’s position was not totally
straightforward and this question did test the candidates’ ability to follow a developing
argument as the writer reacted to some dreadful events.
His first thought in these lines was quite obvious really and he suggested that this
race, like all horse racing, is neither ‘callous’ nor ‘cruel’. He admitted it had always
been dangerous and ‘potentially deadly’ but he also thought that jockeys accept the
risks as an occupational hazard. He explicitly said that he ‘loves’ the Grand National,
although he thinks it is the ‘toughest race in the world.’ His feelings of passionate
loyalty and commitment to the event were suggested when he stated he would
defend it to his ‘last breath’. However, he also felt that this year’s race was ‘agonising
to watch’ and not a great advertisement for his sport. He thought the opponents of
the race would have a ‘field day’ because of the carnage but he thought that
supporters of the race should react ‘sensibly and calmly’.
His argument had some subtleties at this point and it was important to follow the logic
of what he was thinking and feeling. He argued that the conditions were unusual
because the weather was hot and the ground was very hard and fast and he
conceded that those conditions increased both the speed and danger of the race. He
even went so far as to accept that perhaps the race should not be run in such
conditions. However, he did not think that the fences should be made smaller and he
explained that in his opinion smaller fences would be just as dangerous because
they would be jumped at higher speeds. He thought that we have to accept risk in
racing as in life and that it is risk and danger that makes an event like the Grand
National such a ‘compelling’ spectator sport. He finished with the interesting thought
that if the race were to be made too safe it would destroy it. A safe Grand National
simply would not be the Grand National.
Those who tracked the text carefully scored very well indeed here but some lost the
thread of the argument while others gave up after the first few lines.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
10
Q.3
The text by Andrew Tyler was not too long or unmanageable. As I have mentioned
many times before, these questions are key discriminators but, as I said in last
summer’s report on a similar question, candidates could make good progress by
looking closely at the detail of what he said about the Grand National and even more
if they took at least some opportunities to explain or comment on those details. Any
attempt to influence or persuade relies to a greater or lesser extent on what the writer
chooses to tell the reader and this factual detail is usually what gives substance to an
argument. That said, the best answers do look at the writer’s methods, and choice of
language, and have a conceptual overview of how the writer is approaching the task
of making a persuasive case. What is not required is the aimless ‘naming of parts’
where identifying real, or often imaginary, devices is seen as an end in itself. I would
no more ban the Grand National for an example of alliteration than I would visit
Glastonbury for a short sentence, and I suspect I am not alone. As Peter Scudamore
had predicted in his essay, Andrew Tyler began by having a ‘field day’ with the
shocking details of ‘this year’s race.’ He was quick to point out that two horses had
died and only nineteen horses out of forty had completed the race. He described the
course as ‘gruelling’ to suggest its punishing nature and he specified the exact size
of the two fences where the horses had died. Becher’s Brook was described as
‘notorious’ to suggest that this was a frequent occurrence and not a ‘one-off’ tragedy.
He used emotive language in describing the crowd’s reaction as ‘gasps of horror’ to
leave his readers in little doubt about the appalling nature of the spectacle the crowd
had witnessed. He then raised and challenged the claim that the race is being made
‘safer, safer, safer’ and the repetition perhaps included a tone of mockery. His
response of ‘No, it’s not’, quite a deliberate stylistic feature, was uncompromising,
dismissive and blunt, although it was not helpful merely to say that he used a short
sentence. The use of a short sentence is sometimes clearly deliberate but some
comment must be made about the effect it has even if they say it is for emphasis.
Tyler went on to make the telling points that this race is ‘deliberately hazardous’ and
‘predictably lethal’, suggesting that the deaths and injuries are part of the
entertainment. He listed specific dangers such as the tightly-packed field, the long
distance and the noise of the crowd and again used extremely pejorative language in
describing the race as ‘depraved’ and comparing it to Spanish bull fighting. This
comparison cried out for a comment but was often just noted. He denounced the
sport as ‘animal abuse’ and ‘bloody, ruthless business’. At one level, candidates
were sensible enough to see that these details were a powerful part of his persuasive
tactics and they spotted and quoted them. However, the better candidates saw
clearly what was going on here and the methods Tyler was employing to arouse
feelings of disgust. He had no specific figures but he claimed that horse racing is
responsible for ‘hundreds’ of horses being raced to death and many more being
permanently injured. The climax of this argument was that the Grand National is ‘the
most dangerous’.
He then tried to arouse feelings of guilt in anyone who enjoys a bet and dismissed
the idea of a ‘harmless flutter’ as a gamble with the lives of horses. He reminded his
readers that falling on dry ground is like falling on concrete and he called the race a
‘national disgrace’ and ‘a national day of shame’ which should be no part of a
‘civilised society’. He insisted that suffering and death are unavoidable as the race is
‘gruelling’ and the deaths are ‘countless’. He repeated the points about the size of
the fences and the exhaustion of the horses and called the fatalities ‘hugely
distressing’ but unsurprising. He quoted the shocking statistic of seventeen deaths in
sixteen years and concluded that deaths are unavoidable and an outright ban is the
only answer.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
11
Some candidates did mention the photographs and made the obvious point that they
illustrated and reinforced Tyler’s argument. This was a powerful, almost unequivocal
article and there was plenty of material for the candidates to select and analyse. The
best answers responded to the writer’s choice of factual detail and language and
attempted to address the issue of ‘how’, showing some understanding of authorial
method. Weaker candidates saw this type of question merely as an opportunity to
indulge in a relentless hunt for technical jargon and remained vague and
unconvincingly assertive as they just spotted devices (often not understood really)
rather than genuinely explored persuasive technique. This approach usually means
that the alleged devices get between the candidate and the text. I am never very
optimistic about the influence of these reports but I would like to repeat a comment I
made in last Summer’s report in the hope that repetition is as effective as many of
the candidates suggest it is. I suggested in my last report that ‘this approach is no
doubt well-intentioned but is misguided and in the hands of less able candidates it
can prove to be disastrous’. I can only hope.
Q.4
As it is a requirement to ask a question which tests the candidates’ ability to make
comparisons or collate information from different sources, this question should not
have come as a surprise to anyone. This type of question does not usually require a
lengthy answer and lengthy answers are often the weakest because they are so
rambling and unfocused and in many cases ignore the rubric. However, good
answers do require clear presentation and thinking and some conceptual grasp of
two texts. It helped that this question asked the candidates to focus on only one
aspect of the Grand National but there are always those who seem to want to do
their own question.
I thought that I might be apologising for how embarrassingly straightforward this
question was but it proved to be inexplicably difficult as many of the candidates just
could not focus their minds on the reasons why the Grand National is such a
dangerous race. I know that comparison has always been difficult but this question
was set up to make things as straightforward as possible. Still it seemed like an
insurmountable hurdle, the examining equivalent of Becher’s Brook, at which large
numbers fell dramatically. I cannot really explain why so many candidates got
themselves into such a tangle with this question. Many of them went round in circles,
asserting that the race was dangerous because it was dangerous and I did wonder
about those who answered the question by telling me that Scudamore loved the race
while Tyler wanted it banned. Ironically, those who kept a clear focus on the
question did very well indeed and often with minimum fuss and effort. The answers
were actually quite simple.
Scudamore suggested that the race is dangerous because the fences are ‘big and
challenging’ and he also pointed to the danger posed by ‘loose horses’ which can
crash into you and ‘fallen horses’ which can bring you down. There was also the
danger of horses coming over the fences to trample a fallen rider. He admitted that
dry ground and the resulting high speed can be dangerous but he also claimed that
smaller fences have increased the risk of fatalities. Overall, he suggested it is a very
tough race which makes heavy demands on horses and riders.
Tyler suggested it is ‘deliberately hazardous’ or, to put it another way, that it is
designed to be dangerous. He specified the danger of a ‘tightly-packed field’ with too
many runners and also suggested that the race was too long, leading to exhaustion.
The noise of the crowd was also identified as a danger, presumably because it
excites the horses, and he explicitly said that the course was one of the ‘most
gruelling and demanding’ with too many fences. He agreed with Scudamore that the
fences are big and he clearly felt that they were dangerously so.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
12
Unit 2 (Writing)
I hoped there would be no surprises in the choice of these tasks and a formal letter to a
Headteacher on the subject of pupils misbehaving outside school and an article for a travel
magazine about a place that offered a good day out should not have presented any serious
difficulties.
As I have mentioned several times before, time is not such a pressing issue in this unit and it
makes sense for the candidates to take a few minutes to plan their writing before plunging
into the tasks. The organisation of ideas requires some planning and there really is no need
to rush headlong into these tasks or to try to make them a speed handwriting test. Answers
certainly do need some substance and development of ideas but the assessment takes into
account the ability to ‘engage the reader’ and rewards ‘cohesion and overall coherence’.
More thought and planning might have improved the outcomes significantly.
Q.1
I had some reservations about this task but, in the event, it worked well and
produced some entertaining writing. Some were short of specific or plausible ideas
and others seemed to overplay the situation by complaining about acts of violent
criminality which would have resulted in action from the local constabulary long
before a resident wrote to the school. However, most of the candidates knew exactly
what it was like in the morning and afternoon as pupils arrived at or left school and
many responses were quite shrewdly and convincingly observed. The best certainly
had some conviction, although the worst were often full of too much passionate
intensity.
Most candidates were only too happy to adopt a ‘persona’ and this approach worked
best as it allowed them to show some humour and flair. Some adopted the role of the
intimidated pensioner and others took on the character of the young mother
struggling to get sleep for herself and her children. Some cleverly assumed the role
of an adult ex-pupil of the school and a lot knew how important it would be to point
out the dire consequences of bad behaviour on the school’s reputation and
recruitment. One examiner commented that these candidates knew which button to
push! A few wrote as themselves but this was a slightly awkward way of tackling the
task as the situation of a pupil writing to the Head about the unacceptable behaviour
of pupils seemed rather odd.
Very few candidates had any problems with the broad issues of purpose, audience or
format but it was disappointing that so few managed to set out the letter correctly.
Most did look like a letter but there were errors in the detail. It is a simple enough skill
to learn and yet only a small number are accurate and precise. I recognise that this is
not the most important issue in the assessment of writing but it does betray an
attitude to technical accuracy which can be quite disheartening.
There were also some problems with register and some candidates found it difficult
to avoid excessive, stilted formality or, alternatively, a tone which was too
conversational or familiar. That said, a tone of outrage and indignation was entirely
appropriate here and a lot of the candidates captured and sustained the exasperation
of the resident who had been pushed as far as flesh and blood could stand by unruly
and inconsiderate pupils. The phrase ‘enough is enough’ was used frequently.
Content was usually appropriate and sometimes had the ring of absolute truth.
Noise, litter and obscene language loomed large in most answers and I particularly
sympathised with the motorists who found their way blocked by hundreds of children
who seemed to walk, slowly, in the middle of the road. Instances of bullying and
minor damage seemed plausible but I was less convinced by allegations of rocks
being thrown at houses and people being repeatedly and violently assaulted.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
13
Those who tried to suggest what the Headteacher should do to remedy the problems
were often struggling for convincing ideas and quite a few could not get beyond an
assembly and a lecture. This was often the weakest part of the answer and there
was no real need to for the writer of the letter to get involved in the disciplinary
procedures or policies of the school. Most would have been well advised to stick to
complaint and outrage. I would just like to add that, as ever, those who resorted to
implausible statistics and surveys did themselves no favours.
The tone of the letter was also important. Some praised the achievements of the
school before embarking on a well-considered appraisal of the situation whilst others
were more forceful. However, some resorted to threats and became too aggressive.
As I said earlier, more thought and planning might have improved some of the
weaker efforts but there is no doubt that it is still a lack of technical accuracy and
control that undermines most writing. A significant number of candidates who cope
reasonably well with the content and organisation of their writing are held back by
basic and frequent errors. There is no easy answer to this problem but it remains a
key issue.
Q.2
This task was not exactly the same as others I have set in the past but it was quite
similar in some ways and really should not have taken anyone by surprise. However,
the outcomes were generally disappointing and in many scripts there was a clear
discrepancy between performance in Q1 and performance in Q2.
This sort of travel journalism is quite sophisticated but there have been plenty of
examples of the genre in examination papers in recent years. For example, Warwick
and Alnwick Castles, Manchester and Bradford and even Glastonbury could have
provided models for this type of writing and I did see several candidates who had
written about Beamish. For those with a comprehensive stock of past papers there is
also Bill Bryson’s piece about Llandudno, although admittedly I am not sure that it
Bryson intended it to fall into the category of a ‘good day out’.
The first problem was a consequence of not reading the question carefully. The
question clearly asked for a suggestion for a ‘good day out’ and some just ignored
that completely and plunged into a recommendation for a holiday, including flights
and hotels. A day out in America, Greece, Spain and even the Dominican Republic
were just a few of the improbable ideas put forward. New York, Sydney and Rome
are just a little more plausible as at least they could be ‘a trip within a trip’. For
example, a holiday in Italy could easily include a day trip to Rome or Florence.
However, I did not see a single response that established that sort of context.
Examiners found themselves frequently commenting on the ‘uneasy’ or
‘uncomfortable’ sense of task and, in fairness to those who did address the task, it
would have been wrong to ignore this weakness.
The second problem was misunderstanding of the purpose, or perhaps even the
nature, of the task. The piece was clearly intended to be enthusiastic about the
chosen location and make a potential visitor interested enough to make the effort and
go there. That did not mean that any drawbacks could not be mentioned but the
basic purpose was clear enough. However, too many candidates produced an
advertisement or a promotional leaflet rather than an article for a travel magazine. A
lot adopted the corporate ‘we’ or ‘our’ and wrote as if they were representing a place
or even a company.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
14
There were some good choices for a day out and, as well as Beamish which I have
already mentioned, there were a number of specific attractions such as Chester Zoo,
Blackpool Pleasure Beach, Drayton Manor, Thorpe Park and Beaulieu on offer. Of
course, Alton Towers was a very popular choice indeed and seems to be the one
place that all teenagers visit. Towns and cities were also good choices and places
such as Manchester, Newcastle and London all had plenty to offer to both the writer
and the visitor. More obvious ‘heritage’ towns or cities such as York, Chester or
Cambridge were good choices and there were too many seaside resorts to mention.
Several small towns and even villages were put forward as possible good days out,
although not always convincingly. Very occasionally, a stately home or castle was
used but sightings of these national treasures were very rare. The Lake and Peak
Districts were perhaps beginning to stretch the notion of a day out but they just about
worked. However, what was very noticeable was that many candidates had very little
idea of what was in these places or why someone might want to visit (except for
Alton Towers of course). Specific attractions were often in very short supply and
usually were just mentioned in passing before the article got to the serious business
of shopping and eating. I have to admit that the idea of making a day trip to London
or Manchester to shop in Primark or eat in KFC did not appeal massively, although it
is true that teenagers may find such things irresistible. More seriously, I think a better
sense of audience might have helped here, although the lack of knowledge about
places is not easy to remedy.
There are always exceptional pieces of work and there were some which were
outstanding, showing confidence in content and expression. I think that this task was
a good discriminator at least in the sense that it definitely identified those who could
write with a sophisticated sense of audience and purpose and could adapt their style
to the requirements of a particular task.
I have already had my obligatory moan about the lack of technical accuracy in many
scripts but, as this is my valedictory report in England before departing for Wales, I
would like to register how much pleasure I have had over the years reading the work
of a huge range of candidates. The delight of marking English is that is so varied and
can be so surprising. To quote my favourite band, it has been a long, strange trip but
it has been a privilege.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
15
CONTROLLED ASSESSMENT
Administration
While many centres managed to get the sample to the moderator on time, there were a fair
number that had to be reminded by WJEC to submit their folders. Given the very short
timescale in the November series, this caused some unnecessary problems. Some centres
included Speaking and Listening information which should have been sent to the appropriate
moderator for that aspect of the course. Otherwise, the administrative aspects were fulfilled
appropriately by the majority.
The input of inaccurate marks remains a worry. WJEC has a system whereby any
amendments regarding inaccurately entered sample marks noted on IAMIS by moderators
are picked up and acted upon. This still leaves a worryingly large number of candidates’
marks unchecked. It is important that marks are carefully checked before they are submitted.
Happily there were fewer occasions when inappropriate notes had to be sent to WJEC for
investigation. Nevertheless it still remains a concern that some centres misunderstand the
regulations. A reminder of the correct procedures can be located via a link in Bulletin 96
which can be found on the GCSE English page on the WJEC website. Moderators were also
concerned when they discovered similarities in essays. Occasionally all the folders from a
class had the same or very similar essay structures in the Reading tasks and sometimes it
was obvious that they were simply copying teacher’s notes. This is unfair practice since it
gives such students an advantage. It is, however, easily spotted and when it was, centres
were contacted and asked to explain the similarities in the students’ work.
There was some confusion regarding appropriate tasks with some centres attempting the
2013 tasks with others, correctly, working on the 2014 tasks. Candidates were not penalised
when incorrect tasks had been attempted. Some students had their work cancelled because
they had 'recycled' essays from the summer series. All work for the November series has to
be new.
There seems to be a growing trend among students to write their work in pencil. This should
be discouraged since very often the work is not particularly legible.
Sometimes it was not clear what mark had been agreed on during the internal cross
moderation phase. Occasionally coversheets had a number of marks as different members
of a department put their assessment decisions against the original mark. While it is pleasing
to see the evidence of discussion, it is important that a final mark is clear.
Some centres did not seem to be aware of the requirement to send all scribed work to the
moderator or that if a scribe is used, the appropriate JCQ forms need to be attached to the
work in order for WJEC to make the correct deductions to the SSPS mark for Writing. These
are regulatory body requirements.
GCSE English 4193 (available in England only)
Shakespeare/Poetry
Most centres had used the 2014 tasks for the Shakespeare/poetry work with the two themes
proving equally popular. The main text choice for both themes was 'Romeo and Juliet', an
ideal choice given its characters and themes.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
16
Those tackling the parent/child relationships task generally worked well on the key scene
between Capulet and his daughter. Better work also considered the other encounter
between the characters early in the play and Capulet's final thoughts on the loss of his
daughter at the conclusion. This provided a balanced view of Capulet’s treatment of Juliet.
Some even brought in reference to Romeo's parents and their concern for his state of mind.
In such work the cultural and social aspects become important since they explain Capulet's
apparently cruel treatment of Juliet. The best candidates were able to see that his behaviour
is only shocking by more recent social values. The weakest students tended to regard him
as an ogre with no concern for his daughter whatsoever which of course is not the case.
Unsurprisingly, the very weakest condemned Capulet for forcing his daughter to commit
bigamy. As always the best students analysed language and were able to support their
views with close reference to the text. Poetry choices were varied with 'Catrin' and 'Follower'
being most popular. The former has clearly grasped the attention of the students as poem
worthy of study. Some students picked up the idea of the death of a child and looked at
parental reactions to this dreadful situation using Juliet’s death, Jonson’s poem ‘On My First
Son’ as well as Heaney’s ‘Mid-term Break’. Other texts used included ‘The Tempest’ where
Prospero’s relationship with his daughter was examined and ‘King Lear’ which contains
plenty to consider when looking at parent/child relationships. Hamlet’s relationship with his
mother and step-father was also considered.
The other theme was ‘Love’ and here ‘Romeo and Juliet’ was also predominant along with a
wide selection of poems from the specified list. Most students centred on romantic love
though, of course, the task allows for other types of love to be considered. It was pleasing to
see the candidates’ reactions to Heaney’s ‘Twice Shy’, with its cautious and restrained
approach to beginning a relationship, set against the whirlwind romance of Romeo and
Juliet. All the poems in the selection were used for this task and this was particularly
gratifying. It was also apparent that teachers had made careful decisions about
differentiation when choosing which poems to highlight in their teaching. There was some
particularly good work from able candidates on the selected sonnets by Donne,
Shakespeare and Elizabeth Barratt Browning. It was surprising that more candidates did not
link up Aphra Behn’s poem of joyous love with Marvell’s witty and cynical seduction in ‘To
His Coy Mistress’.
Different Cultures Prose
The vast majority of candidates wrote about ‘Of Mice and Men’ and, of those, most
considered Curley’s wife. There is not a great deal to say about this task that has not already
been commented upon in previous reports. It is clear that the young lady inspires strong
opinions in candidates. Some believe her to be nothing more than a sly and manipulative
‘tart’ while others see beyond the surface and realise that Steinbeck, on his own admission,
regarded her as a woman deserving pity for her isolation and lack of affection. Close
attention to the text suggests this view, along with accepting that she is naïve and not very
bright.
In this November series, very few essays were seen on the other Different Cultures texts
with the exception of ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’. As has been commented in the past, tasks on
this text were sometimes too large for candidates to handle in the time allowed. For
example, ‘Trace the development of Jem’s character through the book’ is likely to result in
thin consideration of the key aspects of his process of growing up and will almost certainly
not allow the time to look at the language of the text.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
17
While the assessment criteria require the students to consider the whole text, it is certain
that they cannot write about the entire book. Selection is essential and part of the criteria is
indeed concerned with the apt selection of detail. However, there should be some indication
within the essay of knowledge of the whole text. This may come at the beginning or end of
the essay, for example, although a simple plot summary does not fulfil the assessment
requirement.
Narrative
In this section of the folder, candidates may choose tasks from the GCSE English Language
list in addition to the GCSE English choices as long as one piece is in the First and the other
in the Third person. No title stood out as being massively more popular than others though
the ‘The Cheat’ was given a fair amount of attention. Not surprisingly the stories generally
revolved around cheating in tests or exams. All had a moral conclusion - shame before
headteacher and parents and pitiful complaints of “I wish I hadn’t cheated…’ There was
generally some life in these stories and the task itself created tension and some pace. The
other interpretation of this title revolved around cheating boy/girl friends, which is obviously
an issue close to the hearts of many teenagers. Sometimes in these essays the emotions
were so strongly felt that the candidate lost control of the structure and shaping of language
and something which read more like a transcript from a ‘Jeremy Kyle’ show resulted. There
were also a number of stories which developed into a tale of vengeance with some alarming,
and, at times, bloodthirsty, results. Where controlled these could be effective, but often they
tended to become self indulgent and a little too large in scope for the confines of Controlled
Assessment. ‘I slammed the door as I rushed out’ also generated some engaging and
honest narratives which mostly, again unsurprisingly, revolved around a row with mum or
boyfriend. While some of these stories became a little predictable, one often felt that the
candidates were writing based on experience and this, as always, makes the work more
realistic.
‘The Coming Storm’ produced some powerful pictures of the recent tsunami in South East
Asia, one of which was so detailed it seemed the writer had experienced it at first hand.
Others interpreted the task less literally and considered growing problems in relationships or
in international relationships. A number of essays revolved around escaping from Nazi
Germany in the 1930s. The ‘I knew it was the last time I would see him’ task resulted many
poignant stories of the deaths of grandparents, siblings and other relatives and friends. Once
again, these essays, obviously often based on direct experience, showed the young writers
at their best since they had investment in the work. As noted in previous reports, low ability
students can do themselves a great deal of credit when they write about their own
experiences, especially those that have saddened them. Often an honesty and coherence
shines through which is not apparent when they try to write about violence and bloodshed.
These were the most popular tasks although the remainder all received attention.
The usual weaknesses were apparent in some narrative work. These included overcomplicated plotting, a reliance on violence to establish pace and utterly unrealistic
unconvincing stories dependent on circumstances which had no clear rationale. There was
also an increasing tendency to use dual time narratives which are perfectly acceptable but
students need to make it clear when the time shifts occur within the story or they can
become very confusing indeed. As always, natural realistic and honest narratives, based on
the emotions resultant from human experience, the development of character and the
establishment of atmosphere, were the ones which most impressed.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
18
Assessment
This was the last opportunity for centres in England to enter candidates for the unitised
assessment and thus there were a fair number of large entries. There was a view among
moderators that this ‘last chance’ resulted in some inflated marks. The main reason for the
generous treatment of Reading work was, as always, paraphrasing and simple comments on
chosen quotations being regarded as ‘analysis’. In the Shakespeare/poetry work, there was
often an imbalance in the content with the Shakespeare aspect receiving the bulk of the
attention with the poetry simply used as a basis for a few points of linking. In the best
centres, the three aspects of the task were all given due consideration with sensible and full
development of the poetry part of the essay. While the linking section has not a separate
Assessment Objective column in the criteria (unlike GCSE English Literature), to fulfil the
first assessment column (‘Read and understand texts…’), linking must be attempted. In the
Different Cultures Prose section, when work was over-marked, it was generally because the
candidates relied on a narrative approach or made unsupported assertions without textual
support. If a thematic approach was taken, it was not unusual for candidates to write very
briefly about each character in relation to the theme (e.g. loneliness). In these cases the
essays became a series of short paragraphs on Curley's wife, Crooks, Candy etc. These
tended again to lack close textual detail and were reliant on generalisation.
In over-rewarded Writing work, both aspects of the mark were generally inflated. SSPS
marks were often generous and this was especially worrying when the work bore little or no
indication of the errors. It is a requirement of the specification that errors are flagged up and
when they are the SSPS mark is generally accurate. On too many occasions a comment
would be added to the work ‘Spelling and punctuation mostly accurate’ when even a cursory
glance at the work indicated the exact reverse. Content and Organisation marks were also
inflated on occasion with students gaining Band 4 assessments when their work lacked pace
and structure. The top marks should be reserves for those candidates who have consciously
shaped language to encourage the response they want from the reader. The best will have a
very clear idea of the mood or moods they want to establish for the story as a whole. They
will also have thought carefully about the interaction between the limited range of characters
they include. They will also have thought very carefully about appropriate detail. Often high
Content and Organisation marks were awarded to candidates who clearly had given very
little consideration to any of these aspects.
Having thus far noted the occasions when assessments were inaccurate, it must also be
noted that many centres, as a result of careful internal moderation, got the assessment
correct. In these centres the sample folders were often a joy to re-moderate.
GCSE English Language 4173
Extended Literary Text
In this piece the generic tasks relate to the creation of atmosphere or character in a
particular text. There is the possibility of studying from a variety of texts here, with the full
list of external assessment tasks for GCSE English Literature being available in addition to
any Shakespeare play. Unsurprisingly though the majority of work was centred on ‘Of Mice
and Men’ and, as with the Different Cultures element in the GCSE English specification
Curley's wife formed the basis of much of this work. There is perhaps little left to say that
has not already been mentioned on the subject in this and previous reports, but we would
sound a note of caution with relation to the selection of appropriate textual evidence and its
analysis.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
19
Whilst the probing analysis of language is to be encouraged there is a danger in looking for
meaning and symbolism beyond the point of its being relevant or useful. For example, the
desire to look for evidence of ‘foreshadowing’ in ‘Of Mice and Men’ brought up some curious
focus on subjects such as Curley’s wife’s ‘sausage’ curls. There were examples of
candidates attributing various layers of meaning to these and we remained unconvinced by
those who were adamant that Steinbeck chose to imagine her in this way in order to show
she would ultimately be ‘dead meat’.
In the work on ‘Of Mice and Men’ there was some focus on Steinbeck’s creation of
atmosphere, and this was particularly well done when looking at the scene where Candy’s
dog is shot or the scene which takes place in Crooks’ room. There is generally a very clear
focus with this type of task which does encourage candidates to engage fully with
Steinbeck’s language. The best pieces use this as basis to make probing links with the
remainder of the text.
Beyond ‘Of Mice and Men’, work on ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ was undoubtedly the next most
popular choice. It was however, pleasing to see a number of centres tackling works such as
‘Lord of the Flies’, ‘Blood Brothers’, ‘A View from the Bridge’ and ‘An Inspector Calls’. Work
on ‘A Christmas Carol’ seemed appropriately seasonal for the November series and was
met with a warm reception by moderators fortunate enough to encounter it. As with previous
years, the production of work based on a Shakespeare play is less common, perhaps as a
result of a centre’s already devoting so much Shakespeare-based time to the Literature
specification. However, where candidates did elect to take this route there was evidence of
some very thorough and analytical work – particularly on the characterisation of Macbeth or
Lady Macbeth where very able candidates often excelled.
Writing
Many of the comments made in relation to the GCSE English specification also apply here.
Issues that have previously occurred with the timing of these pieces appeared, on the whole,
to have been ironed out. Candidates generally seemed to use a little more time on the
Narrative pieces which is perhaps an indication of them needing less time to create an
effective scene on the Descriptive work.
There is a wide variety of tasks for candidates to choose from in this element, especially on
the Narrative pieces given the possibility of also using the tasks set for the GCSE English
specification, and many centres gave candidates as much room for manoeuvre as possible,
allowing them to chose from the full range. It is strange then, that some centres elect to
restrict the possibility of candidates demonstrating their originality by directing them
specifically towards one task. This was especially obvious on some of the Descriptive pieces
and this led to some unsettling uniformity of approach at times.
Descriptive Writing
As with the GCSE English specification work on Writing, there was a pleasing and
enthusiastic response to the new tasks. All of the descriptive tasks proved accessible and
provided familiar locations for candidates to write about with enthusiasm. Local park scenes
and school cafeterias were perhaps the most popular choices, and there was clear evidence
of realistic and engaging detail in both of these pieces. The toy shop scenario, the beginning
of a race and the ‘lively’ street market were not neglected, however, and it was pleasing to
see the colour and detail of all of these pieces.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
20
The work on a toy shop, again perhaps proved particularly appropriate for the November
series with many candidates electing to position their work specifically in the Christmas
period.
More able candidates in this section are able to concentrate on giving a clear and
entertaining picture of a place. It is crucial to be mindful of the task throughout and setting
should be evident throughout the description. A common mistake in this type of work is for
candidates to focus (albeit sometimes with admirable detail) on one or two specific
elements. These are often stereotypical cameos or caricatures which could be imagined in
virtually any scene. The real skill lies in working these details into the task at hand.
Similarly, a significant number of candidates insist on providing an ‘introductory’ paragraph,
generally concerned with the weather or time of the day, which often has little to do with the
task at hand. Reading of a ‘cerulean’, ‘cobalt’ or ‘azure’ sky no matter the context often
denotes a prepared start rather than a focused attention to the task. Similarly, there were a
number of candidates who made decisions that were perhaps misguided in relation to
vocabulary selection and the use of, at times, bizarre imagery. It should be noted that Band
4 criteria looks for the use of ‘appropriate ambitious vocabulary’ and the word ‘appropriate’ is
absolutely key to the assessment of this. The desire to overload work with ‘advanced’
vocabulary can often result in ideas making little sense or sounding so forced that they
alienate rather than engage the reader.
Narrative Writing
The points made in the GCSE English section are also relevant here.
Assessment
Many of the points made in the GCSE English section remain true here. In the work on an
Extended Literary Text there was a real feeling that centres were on familiar ground and that
marking tended to be reasonably accurate. Where judgements were less secure it tended to
be as a result of crediting narrative accounts which perhaps struggled to demonstrate a real
awareness of the writers’ use of language. Very brief pieces were also naturally restricted
by their lack of content and occasionally this was not adequately reflected in the marks
given.
In Descriptive Writing more obvious discrepancies in marking were apparent. Brevity was
again an issue and some pieces were far too short for the marks given. A First person
approach to these pieces, whilst perfectly acceptable, does have some inherent dangers.
Candidates are perhaps more likely to stray into a narrative approach when using a First
person narrator which would make it very difficult for them to fully access the range of marks
available. Other areas of concern here relate to the awarding of the split mark. There were
two main problems, first that the SSPS mark did not adequately reflect the type and number
of errors that were apparent in a piece. This was often exacerbated by the lack of marking
of these types of errors on the work. It is of paramount importance that all errors are clearly
marked (a simple circling or underlining of each error is appropriate) in order to inform the
SSPS mark given. The other problem often encountered was that centres had responded to
the SSPS element appropriately but that the Content and Organisation mark seemed overinflated in order to compensate for this. The first of the Band 3 criteria for Content and
Organisation states that overall a piece must be ‘controlled and coherent’. It seems unlikely
then that a piece gaining a mark in Band 2 for SSPS would be placed highly in Band 4 for
Content and Organisation if the Band 3 requirement for overall coherence has not been met.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
21
Spoken Language Study 4174/02
As with the summer, it was apparent that centres have become increasingly confident and
skilled in delivering this element of the course and it is clear that candidates are engaged by
the work they complete here. The selections for study were similar to those used in the past,
with J K Rowling and work on ‘The Junior Apprentice’ featuring heavily, but it was pleasing
to see some real variety beginning to emerge in the choices for study. There were many
examples of television interviews with a fairly diverse selection of celebrities or politicians in
the ‘hot seat’. Many of these had been carefully chosen and really leant themselves to
careful study. Elsewhere, moderators reported enjoying work on the ‘Educating Essex’
series, ‘The Great British Bake Off’ and ‘Dragon’s Den’. In-house transcripts were used
effectively in places – often this occurred when a set transcript had been produced by staff
and made available to a whole class for study. There were some interesting transcripts
made by the students of their own conversations, although at times, these were also quite
limiting as a result of insufficient content. The problems associated with overly long
transcripts seemed less prevalent this time around.
The candidates who performed best in this element were those who were able to
demonstrate a sustained and detailed study of the words spoken and the way in which they
are spoken. A common pitfall seemed to be giving too much emphasis to paralinguistic
features and body language rather than focusing on the impact of the words and language
used. Moderators reported rather less feature spotting this series, although where it
occurred it was often the case throughout a centre’s pieces. The listing and exemplification
of features such as ‘fillers’ means little if not accompanied with commentary that explores
their relevance.
Assessment
On the whole it seemed that messages given previously regarding the assessment of these
pieces had translated themselves into some fair judgements being made. Where candidates
were over rewarded it often related to the details mentioned above or was a result of them
being credited too highly for work which did not extend much beyond a retelling of the events
of the transcript. Better marks were available to those who could tellingly identify the effects
of spoken language and range across the transcript(s) to make telling and detailed points.
SPEAKING AND LISTENING
For a large part of the entry, marks for Speaking and Listening were carried forward from the
entry in June 2013. However, there were quite a large number of new entries, as this was
the final opportunity for Unit 4 Speaking and Listening element of the Controlled Assessment
to be taken as a first entry for GCSE English (in England) or English Language (in England
and Wales).
Some of these centres would have been visited in the course of the annual advisory
moderator visits during November.
Centres were required to submit outline of activities forms for their candidates to the
appropriate moderator, and these were accompanied by a sample of the individual records,
for each of the teachers. Details of tasks were generally appropriate and complied with the
requirements of the specification. The requirement for there to be a functional element for
two of the tasks was much more clearly focused in the tasks outlined.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
22
The range of achievement covered the full range of marks and Bands in the criteria, which
was to be expected with the numbers of centres which made large entries of whole cohorts.
Where the entries were of resit candidates, the range of achievement tended to be narrower.
There were a few concerns raised by the moderators in relation to these entries, and some
investigations were made concerning unusual patterns of achievement.
GCSE English - English Lang OOW Examiners report - November 2013 HT/07.01.14
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
23
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.