GCSE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
ENGLISH, ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND
ENGLISH LITERATURE
JANUARY 2012
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Statistical Information
The Examiners' Report may refer in general terms to statistical outcomes. Statistical
information on candidates' performances in all examination components (whether internally
or externally assessed) is provided when results are issued. As well as the marks achieved
by individual candidates, the following information can be obtained from these printouts:
For each component: the maximum mark, aggregation factor, mean mark and standard
deviation of marks obtained by all candidates entered for the examination.
For the subject or option: the total entry and the lowest mark needed for the award of each
grade.
Annual Statistical Report
Other information on a centre basis is provided when results are issued. The annual
Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall outcomes of
all examinations administered by WJEC.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
ENGLISH/ENGLISH LANGUAGE
General Certificate of Secondary Education
January 2012
Chief Examiners:
Chair of Examiners - Mr. B.J.D. Childs, formerly Deputy
Headteacher, Ysgol Gyfun Dyffryn Taf, Whitland.
Higher Tier Units 1 & 2 - Dr. K.C. Elliott, formerly Head of Humanities,
Wigan and Leigh College.
Foundation Tier Units 1 & 2 - Mr. E. Snell, Director of English and
School Improvement, Outwood Grange Academy.
Controlled Assessment - Mr. S.H. Sage, formerly Assistant
Headteacher, Holywell High School, Flintshire.
Speaking and Listening - Mrs. J. Hingley, formerly teacher of English,
Tredegar Comprehensive School.
FOUNDATION TIER
Unit 1 (Reading)
This paper followed a very familiar pattern and well-prepared candidates found the texts and
questions accessible. The texts themselves were similar in format to those seen in previous
Paper 2 (Legacy) examinations, in this case comprising of a leaflet advertising Beamish
Museum and a newspaper article reporting on a family visit there. These texts seemed to pose
few problems and the questions too were straightforward, offering candidates opportunities to
show their ability to track the text carefully and to analyse persuasive technique. Two of the
questions included specific instructions about what to include in responses and good candidates
took full advantage of this, with detailed responses supported by appropriate textual detail.
Most candidates completed the paper but there were some incomplete scripts and for some,
poor time management cost them valuable marks.
Q.1
This first question followed the pattern seen in Legacy papers of inviting candidates to
show their ability to locate and select specific details from the text. Good candidates had
few problems with the questions and many gained full marks. However, some failed to
read the questions carefully enough and selected incorrect information. The first part of
the question, for example, asked for three of the people that visitors might meet in the
museum who would be able to talk about life in the past, and this simply required
locating the correct section of text (`...meet the people who lived and worked in the past.
Talk to the dentist, school teacher, miners, farmers, engine drivers and a pitman‟s wife`).
Some candidates seemed to ignore the text entirely and wrote about asking adults and
grandparents to talk about their lives. Some also made some wild stabs when asked to
list two places where life in Edwardian England could be seen, choosing places like
Pockerley Old Hall and Pockerley Waggonway, even though this clearly mentioned that
these would take visitors back to Georgian times. In some cases, it was a lack of
precision that caused candidates to fail to collect marks, with the final part of the first
question (`List two ways in which Beamish Museum tries to help disabled visitors`) a
particular case in point. Some candidates simply wrote the word `wheelchair` as one of
their responses or decided that the `uneven surfaces and steep slopes` would be helpful
to disabled visitors. Many candidates gained full marks for this first question with no
difficulties at all, but for some, these simple mistakes cost them valuable marks. It has
never been the intention to use this type of question to trip candidates up; it should have
got candidates off to a good start as well as settling exam nerves, but it required some
care and precision and some candidates were too cavalier in their approach.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
Q.2
Using the Beamish Museum leaflet offered the obvious opportunity to explore how it
attempted to persuade potential visitors to the site. Over a number of years `How does
the leaflet persuade...` has been a familiar question on Foundation Tier and wellprepared candidates were clear about what would earn them good marks. The bullet
points also gave one way for candidates to structure their responses, although it was
perfectly acceptable to explore the leaflet without using three sub-headings, and as
some candidates chose to do, working through the leaflet page by page.
Perhaps the key feature of the museum promoted by the leaflet was that a trip to
Beamish transported the visitor back in time and allowed them to become part of history.
The front cover of the leaflet made this very clear, as it presented itself as a `living
museum` and one that allowed visitors to `step into the past`. These key quotations
were supported by the photograph of a young woman dressed in suitably old-fashioned
attire inviting visitors into what appeared to be a shop from a bygone era. It was clear
that the cover showed that it was a museum where visitors themselves participated in
the recreation of the past. Many candidates sensibly used some or all of the details from
the cover, and good candidates tried to comment on the details, whilst weaker
candidates tended to just `spot` the details but failed to push on to comment on why the
quotations or pictures were significant. Others chose to focus on the quotation from the
Sunday Times, which told potential visitors that Beamish was `One of the world‟s coolest
museums`. Some saw the use of the word `coolest` as evidence that the museum
would appeal to young visitors because of its `trendy` language, whilst others saw the
endorsement by a weighty national newspaper as evidence of the museum‟s quality.
Again, there was a distinction between those who were prepared to offer a comment on
how or why this might attract a potential visitor, as opposed to those who simply noted
that the Sunday Times thought it was a good place to go.
As candidates looked in detail at the inside of the leaflet, there was a wealth of material
to explore and comment on. Here, good candidates could score highly as they linked
the information and pictures to the idea that the visitors themselves were transported
back in time. The leaflet told the reader of a time when there were no mobile phones,
televisions or even bathrooms and houses had only outside toilets and intriguingly,
Beamish Museum could show you life as it was actually lived back then. Immediately
underneath this information was a photograph of a tram and a cobbled street and in the
forefront of the photograph, two young children in conversation with a member of the
museum staff in Victorian or Edwardian dress. The photograph evoked the past but
neatly linked it to what visitors were able to do: to talk to people from the past. It was
indeed the `living museum` that it claimed to be.
Other parts of the text gave further information about what there was to see and do, and
it emphasised the size of the museum and offered the opportunity to talk to museum
staff who, in role, played the part of those who lived and worked in the past. The leaflet
claimed it was possible to „talk to the dentist, school teacher, miners, farmers‟, and the
photographs showed visitors talking to shopkeepers, farmers and so on. It emphasised
the authenticity of what was on offer by explaining, for example, that visitors could ride
the actual trams built and used over a hundred years ago and now restored to their
former glory. There was a manor house to visit, a railway with a working replica of the
`Puffing Billy` steam train and the recreation of a whole Edwardian town, with houses, a
farm and shops of the era. Visitors could also go underground into a real drift mine and
get a feel of what life was like as a miner. The leaflet offered photographs to support its
claim that visitors would see life as it was lived in the past and these showed families
and children interacting with the museum staff and looking thoroughly engaged by what
was on offer.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
The final pages of the leaflet explained some of the other attractions such as the
opportunities for eating and shopping, the facilities for disabled visitors and information
on the museum‟s location and ease of access.
The leaflet was selected partly because of the wealth of material that could be used in
response to the question and good candidates made strong links between the details
they selected and the comments they made about how and why visitors might be
persuaded to visit. Where they worked methodically through the leaflet, they found
plenty to focus upon. As ever, it was the quality of their comments that determined their
marks but there were many who scored well here.
Disappointingly, there were also many candidates who seemed unclear about what was
expected of them. Markers reported that there were still significant numbers of
candidates who wrote about the leaflet in vague or general terms, with little focus on
specific details from the text. There were also candidates who focused on why the
leaflet was attractive rather than why it might persuade someone to visit, and this led to
responses that told markers that it used `big bold font` or made vague references to
details that `made you want to read on`. References to photographs were sometimes
too vague to merit reward, with weaker candidates simply explaining there `were lots of
photographs` or that the `photographs were very colourful`, rather than focusing on the
content or how the photographs might attract a potential visitor. In some cases,
candidates focused on some of the less-important details such as the map or the food
available, and ignored what Beamish had to offer visitors as a museum, and this made it
difficult to gain high reward.
Q.3
This question focused on the newspaper article that reported a visit to the museum
made by a mother and her family. The text itself was straightforward enough, giving a
view of what was enjoyable about the visit and some features that she found less
positive. Many candidates used the bullet points in the question to ensure their
coverage of the text was thorough.
Most candidates who scored highly ensured they methodically tracked the text, and they
invariably scored well. The mother began her account by explaining that a short visit
had been planned but the museum provided such a wealth of attractions for all in the
family that it meant they had enjoyed a packed day at the museum, but still left having
not seen all of the attractions on offer. She said she found the entry price expensive for
a family and this might have detracted from the enjoyment of the day; however, she
seemed to like the fact that the ticket allowed further visits during the year at no extra
cost. There were plenty of things the mother enjoyed about the museum: she talks
about the museum being situated in `stunning countryside`. She then goes on to talk
about the way the museum was organised in such a way that they could visit places
around the site at their leisure and really get a sense of being transported back in time by
talking to the staff who were dressed in period costume as well as being able to touch
and see artefacts from the past. She mentions particular places she enjoyed visiting like
Home Farm and The Town, which she describes as a `highlight` of the day because it
gave her the feeling of travelling back 100 years. She also talks about the visit to the
mine that she found made her feel `claustrophobic and panicky` and mentions other
points she was less impressed by, such as the lack of shelter around the site and the
cafe that she felt was pricey and packed.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
She goes on to explain what her children enjoyed about the visit. Her son particularly
enjoyed visiting the farm because he was able to talk to the farmer about his work and
was able to `make a fuss` over the animals. He had also enjoyed his visit to the dentist‟s
house where he could see the tools used by dentists at the time, and enjoyed the
`gruesome tales` told by the dentist of patients who had had unpleasant experiences as
a result of their toothache. Her daughter, Rosie, had enjoyed her visit to the sweet shop
where she had seen sweets being made and had joined in a game of hopscotch at the
village school.
The mother sums up her visit by saying she thought it was `fantastic and definitely worth
a visit` and as a final comment says that she would recommend it for any
family that was `looking for a different day out`.
It was clear that the bullet points had helped candidates prepared to track carefully and
there were many who gained good marks. Where candidates did less well, they offered
only brief responses or failed to select the details efficiently. In some cases, candidates
failed to identify what the children enjoyed individually or made only vague references to
points that had been given particular focus in the text.
Q.4
Candidates have often found this final question challenging because of the requirement
to make use of both texts and I hoped that by asking candidates to collate information
from each text in columns this would make the task less daunting but still test the ability
to select appropriately. Weaker candidates sometimes ignored this instruction and their
responses were often a jumble of details from both texts that left markers unclear about
where information had been selected from. Where candidates had read the question
carefully and organised their material sensibly against the three bullet points, they often
scored very highly. For example, the Beamish Museum leaflet told readers that the
trams offer a relaxing ride around the site. It told readers that each of the trams had
been carefully restored and that the museum owned and operated six trams that had
been built between 1900 and 1925. The newspaper article also confirmed they had
been painted in their original colours but the mother focused on how the children had
enjoyed travelling on them and the fact that they came along every 15-20 minutes.
Views about the food on offer at the museum were mixed, with the leaflet saying there
was an `excellent range` of hot and cold food on offer and there were various places
around the museum site where visitors could enjoy eating. The view of the mother in the
newspaper article was that it was less impressive, the cafe being both pricey and
packed. She also said that some food had sold out when they arrived. The final details
to be selected focused on the mine, where the leaflet offered visitors the opportunity to
see the collection of miners‟ safety lamps, perhaps before putting on a safety helmet and
then visiting the `real drift mine` on site. The newspaper article gave a sense of what it
was like to be in the mine: dark, narrow and with little room to stand upright, but went on
to say what the experience might be like for visitors, the mother finding it claustrophobic
but her son enjoying it.
At times, candidates‟ responses lacked precision and sometimes the necessary detail,
but where they read and selected carefully, they were often able to gain full marks.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
4
Unit 2 (Writing)
As with Higher Tier candidates, the combination of a letter and a leaflet should not have been a
surprise, and the Higher Tier comments on the leaflet, which was a common task for all
candidates, apply equally to those entered for Foundation Tier.
Q.1
The Olympic Games to be held in London in 2012 provided a useful vehicle for this first
task and in writing a letter applying to be a volunteer at the games, candidates had to
`sell` themselves to show why and how they would be suitable.
Although there has been some considerable publicity in recent months about the
Olympic Games, this was not a test of knowledge about all that volunteers might be
expected to do, and the bullet points offered the general areas that candidates might
usefully focus on in their letters. The candidates who were able to develop responses
that convincingly showed their personal qualities and experience, along with their
interest in the role, were able to gain high marks.
Perhaps the first point to make is that it is helpful for candidates to set their work out as a
letter. There were some examples of responses that had no addresses, salutation or
closure to the piece and this often resulted in the wrong tone or register being adopted
and on occasions, a loss of the sense of writing for a particular recipient. The basic
conventions and layout of a formal letter are not difficult and those who did this correctly
often benefited because they were able to establish the correct reader-writer relationship
from the start. It is probably easiest to begin a formal letter with a simple `Dear
Sir/Madam` but some chose to write `To whom it may concern` and others got
themselves in a tangle with a variety of exotic salutations that sometimes simply
exposed some basic spelling problems.
Good candidates used the opening sentence of their letters to establish why they were
writing and to set out briefly why they would make an effective volunteer. They then
used separate paragraphs to present a number of reasons that developed their suitability
for the role. These candidates often used the bullet points in the task details well. For
example, some wrote about their experience in helping out at school or sports clubs or at
local or regional events. The best tried to develop a few details to support their claims
and gave evidence of the roles they had taken on and how this had helped them to take
on greater responsibility or helped them develop their skills in dealing with people in a
range of situations. Many linked their own interest and involvement in sports to the role
they would have as a volunteer and showed their enthusiasm for participating in the
experience of the Olympic Games.
These good responses were also sensible in the kinds of details they offered about
themselves; some seeing that subjects like French and Spanish would be useful on
occasions. Weaker writers often tended to over-exaggerate their claims as suitable
candidates for the role of volunteer, with some apparently able to offer up to eleven
languages and having attended the last four Olympic Games as spectators. Some also
felt they would be able to offer useful tips and training to some of the competitors. In
more realistic applications, most candidates were anxious to show they were helpful,
would take on any task demanded of them and would be ever-cheerful under the most
demanding circumstances. For weaker writers, the difficulty was that their qualities
tended to become a list and they tended to offer little support for the claims they made.
This meant that weaker writers often produced quite brief responses. More able
candidates tried to develop each of the points they made with telling examples or
anecdotes that gave some weight to the points they made. These more able candidates
were able to write convincingly, with letters that were usually 250-300 words in length.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5
It is also worth reflecting on the fact that one-third of the marks available are for
technical accuracy, and often candidates penalised themselves with basic errors of
spelling and punctuation. There were many candidates, for example, who concluded
their letters by spelling `sincerely` incorrectly (even where `faithfully` would have
been correct and perhaps easier to spell) and across the tier, basic spelling and
errors in grammar and punctuation continued to cost candidates valuable marks.
Q.2
As with Higher Tier candidates, most candidates had plenty to say on the topic of
smoking, but weaker candidates penalised themselves by sometimes producing
responses that were more like posters than leaflets, with little text, few complete
sentences and a reliance on big boxes that indicated illustrations of the dangers of
smoking. In some cases, responses contained fewer than ten sentences.
Candidates on Foundation Tier were offered two bullet points to help them begin to
structure their responses and many used these along with ideas of their own to
organise their writing. Because they were writing for young people, the best
responses clearly targeted their peer group, using appropriate vocabulary and
expression and focusing on content that would have the most impact for teenagers.
Some however, lost focus and their leaflets then became a much more general tirade
against smoking in general terms; it was clear that some leaflets were more
appropriate for pregnant women or long-term smokers than young people.
Where candidates produced good responses, they invariably told their readers about
the myth of `smoking makes you look cool` and offered clear, sensible advice about
how to resist the pressure from peers who urged them to smoke. They also told of
the longer term dangers of smoking but tended to focus on the immediate effects and
the impact smoking would have on one‟s chances of getting a boy/girlfriend. At
times, responses combined these details with some punchy, direct questions to the
reader which added to the impact of the work.
Across both tiers, the use of statistics became double-edged: they often backed up
an argument well but at times they became absurd. For example, telling readers that
each cigarette would shorten one‟s life by 5 years was unconvincing in the extreme,
yet these were the kinds of `statistics` some leaflets invited readers to believe.
The best responses used a mixture of convincing argument and information, and,
whilst showing awareness of presentational devices, never allowed them to dominate
the work. In these pieces the balance of writing in sentences and paragraphs was
never outweighed by a reliance on lists and bullet points, which weaker responses
showed. As with the letter-writing task, it was difficult for very brief responses to gain
high marks, as they lacked development of ideas or tended to focus on a narrow
range of points. Good responses were often two sides in length, ranged across the
subject well and always kept the intended audience in mind. Accuracy and
expression was also important and as with the first task, some basic errors ended up
costing candidates valuable marks.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
6
HIGHER TIER
Unit 1 (Reading)
This paper seemed to give the candidates every opportunity to show what they could do and
those who had been appropriately entered, and well-prepared, seemed very comfortable with
the material and the questions. It has never been my intention to add to the test faced by the
candidates by trying to catch them out with unpredictable questions and this paper held no
surprises for those candidates who had a clear idea of what was expected of them. The paper
followed a familiar pattern and most of the candidates made a genuine attempt to show what
they could do. There were some incomplete scripts and some examples of poor time
management but overwhelmingly the candidates attempted the whole paper and showed
sensible examination technique. There were several opportunities to score well here and many
of the candidates took at least one of them.
The passages seemed to be fairly accessible and it was possible to structure the questions in
such a way that the texts could be handled in manageable sections, which undoubtedly made
things easier for most of the candidates, although some ignored the attempt to help them and
strayed outside the specified sections of text.
Q.1
This question only required the candidates to read five paragraphs of the text by Charles
Starmer-Smith and the bullet points in the question seemed to provide a clear structure
for the answers, which most candidates followed very sensibly.
It was fairly obvious that as a boy he loved cycling because it was a source of adventure
and he „revelled‟ in the freedom and excitement of cycling while on holiday in France.
Cycling also released his imagination as he imagined he was „one of the Tour de France
greats‟. Some candidates tried to argue that he had an ambition to be a professional
cyclist but the text did not really support that idea.
As an adolescent, he discovered „girls and guitars and cars‟ and cycling was no longer
„cool‟. Aware of the „limitations‟ of a bike, particularly when compared to the attractions of
a „battered silver Mini‟, he lost interest in cycling, not least because he could not play
Pearl Jam or have a pretty girl in the passenger seat.
The first two phases of this question were really straightforward but Starmer-Smith‟s
thoughts and feelings about cycling as a man were slightly more elusive. Some
candidates lost their „position‟ and gave up using „he thinks‟ or „he feels‟. I suspect the
problem for some was that they found it difficult to infer thoughts and feelings from what
he said or did. For example, the fact that he was „puffing like a man on an epic ascent‟
when he tackled the „gentle contours of Richmond Park‟ suggested he felt physically
challenged, or exhausted, by cycling as an adult. He mentions that he spent a „small
fortune‟ on his outfit so he obviously thought it was expensive. However, more obviously,
purchasing new gear did give him „an inflated sense‟ of his „sporting prowess‟ and he felt
purposeful and „streamlined and ready for anything‟. When his wife mocked his
appearance and suggested he looked like a Village People tribute act, he felt „deflated‟.
Some suggested, rightly, he felt embarrassed or humiliated by the helmet and
fluorescent bib but others misread this part of the text. Quite a few candidates were
convinced that cycling had resulted in marital breakdown and some went even further to
suggest that he rather callously abandoned his wife in favour of his bike!
The final paragraph offered an easy inference as he felt „smug‟ as he weaved through
the „choking traffic‟ but not many grasped the feelings of peace and serenity as he turned
into the „silence‟ on the way to Box Hill. Those who went outside the specified lines did
themselves no favours.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
7
Q.2
This question essentially tested the candidates‟ ability to follow an argument and the
best approach was simply to track methodically through the relevant section of the text.
The candidates could make significant progress here by simply finding the relevant
points in the text but the very best answers were selective and cohesive, showing clear
understanding. They were detailed and also totally coherent, often showing real skill in
manipulating text.
Starmer-Smith clearly suggested that the peace and beauty of the countryside were
most enjoyable features of cycling but he also stressed the escape from „delays‟ and
„deadlines‟ into the „panoramic views‟ of „verdant hills and plunging valleys‟.
The popularity of cycling, according to Starmer-Smith, owes a lot to the success of
professional cyclists such as Chris Hoy and Victoria Pendleton on the track and some
also noticed that he mentioned Bradley Wiggins and the inspirational impact of the Sky
Team on the road.
He went on to explain that cycling has benefited from an „overpriced‟ and „overcrowded‟
transport system and the „Cycle to Work‟ initiative has offered financial incentives. Very
few candidates seemed to miss the fact that the bicycle is seen as an answer to rising
carbon emissions.
He then returned to the issue of „escapism‟, which he argued was „the real draw‟. Not
everyone understood the significance of Starmer-Smith‟s point about not needing to
emulate the „intrepid cyclists‟ who undertake epic journeys.
The final paragraph made two relevant points. He argued that the landscape of Britain is
„perfect for cycling‟ and also pointed out that there is a national cycle network which
covers 10,000 miles.
Q.3
This question focused on Deborah Moggach‟s attempt to prove that cycling is the
sensible option in London. The issue of „how‟ is perhaps rather slippery but this type of
question is not intended to encourage a relentless hunt for technical devices, particularly
when most candidates can do little other than identify them. Rarely, if ever, do they offer
any convincing explanation of „how‟ these devices contribute to the effect of a text.
That said, most candidates made decent progress with this question, mainly by
concentrating on the content of the passage and the undoubted impact of what Moggach
had to say about the advantages of cycling and the disadvantages of the alternatives.
The best answers did move beyond simple spotting of factual content and they were not
only selective but also explained and commented on the effect of what was said. The
very best answers also responded to language, tone and, above all, the method of the
writer. It may be helpful for teachers and candidates to think more about the concept of a
writer‟s „method‟ rather than get bogged down in the „naming of parts‟.
An obvious point to make about Deborah Moggach‟s method in this text was that she
used a lot of positive facts about cycling and she began by basing her argument in
personal experience. She insisted that she had cycled in London all her life and that,
reassuringly, even her children cycled. The rhetorical question – „how else does one get
around the place?‟ – suggested a tone of disbelief that anyone could even contemplate
any of the alternatives and she went on to paint a grim picture of transport in London,
including the „misery‟ of the tube and „wall-to-wall buses‟. One candidate showed what
attention to language actually means when he pointed out that she says the cycle is the
„only way‟ (as opposed to a „good way‟) to avoid the nightmare of public transport or the
car. Some spotted the use of the words „weaving‟ and „whizzing‟ but a few noted the
deliberate contrast between the „eternal gridlock‟ of rush-hour traffic and the speed of
cycling.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
8
For those who had grasped this „positive/negative‟ contrast there was a wealth of
relevant material in the passage. For example, she emphasised the flexibility and
freedom offered by cycling and other benefits such as cost, lack of pollution and physical
fitness. She also pointed out the absurdity of taking a tube to work and then spending
the lunch break on an exercise bike, calling such odd behaviour „weird‟. Cycling was
presented as a safe and pleasant experience and this contrasted sharply with being at
the „mercy‟ of bus drivers or roadworks or having to‟ fight‟ the city. One or two candidates
noticed that she was honest about the problems and the „balanced‟ approach gave
credibility to her argument.
Q.4
Most candidates did reach this question but a minority did not read it carefully and
launched into a discussion of the advantages of cycling. Some did realise what they
had done eventually and quickly switched into disadvantages but others pressed on
blindly and simply wasted time and effort.
The bullet points were intended to offer a simple structure for the responses but
some candidates could not resist the temptation to mention both writers under each
heading and they sometimes got themselves into an impenetrable tangle.
However, despite the self-inflicted problems, some candidates did themselves a lot of
good with this question by simply reading the question, and the passage, carefully
and then following the instructions clearly. Both writers offered a range of problems
and disadvantages and there was plenty of relevant material here.
For example, Starmer-Smith tended to play down the problems but he suggested
that cycling could be expensive and also cold, wet and tiring. However, the obvious
problem for him was that in adolescence cycling had „limitations‟ and was not „cool‟. It
had serious shortcomings when compared to a car in that you could not play music
or have a pretty passenger next to you. Worse still, cyclists can look ridiculous and
be the object of mockery, not least apparently from their wives.
Deborah Moggach was more open about the disadvantages of cycling and she
admitted that cycling was not always easy in big cities. She mentioned aggressive
drivers as a danger to cyclists and, perhaps much more importantly, the likelihood of
arriving at a destination sweaty and with „helmet hair‟. She also admitted that cycling
and „sexy clothes‟ do not go together and that a cyclist can look foolish having to
change in an alleyway. She described torrential rain as „no fun‟ and then pointed out
that London has few facilities for cyclists, even at a heart hospital!
Clarity of thought and organisation brought a significant reward here.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
9
Unit 2 (Writing)
Those candidates who had been entered for the appropriate tier should not have found anything
too difficult or unexpected in this paper and the combination of a letter and a leaflet seemed fair
enough. However, I did see a number of candidates who were clearly struggling with both
content and expression and I did wonder about the wisdom of entering them for this tier.
Q.1
Given that 2012 is the year when the Olympic Games return to London after more than
fifty years, it seemed a fairly obvious task to ask the candidates to express their views on
the matter and a formal letter to a national newspaper of their choice seemed the
obvious vehicle.
Despite the current high public profile of the Olympic Games, some candidates found
this task challenging. It seemed to be a total surprise to some that the Olympics were
coming to London and quite a few felt that it might be a good idea to start building a
suitable venue or perhaps use the O2 arena. Some felt that it would be sensible to move
the Games to another town in Britain and others seemed to think it was more or less an
event like a primary school sports day. The lack of awareness and knowledge about the
Olympics was a real problem for some candidates and their suggestions and comments
were often hopelessly unrealistic. Some of them managed to make a little information go
a long way or covered up a lack of ideas and substance with a lot of enthusiasm but
those who had real awareness of the issues involved in staging this huge event were
definitely in the minority. The maturity and sophistication of the really able candidates
was very obvious and certainly contrasted with those who generated more heat than
light.
It was perfectly possible to discuss both sides of the argument about holding the Games
in Britain but „balance‟ is often just synonymous with muddle or contradiction. The
weakest answers did not seem to know where they wanted to go and often ended up
contradicting themselves. The best answers integrated opposing or alternative points of
view into their argument but most candidates would be well advised to establish a clear
stance and stick with it.
Those who claimed to support the London Olympics often made the economic case and
saw the financial benefits of large numbers of visitors for hotels, restaurants and other
tourist attractions. Others were thrilled by the prospect of seeing the world‟s best athletes
compete in Britain and also expressed how much of an honour it was to stage „the
greatest show on earth‟. A lot of candidates saw the Olympics as an opportunity to show
the world the best of this country both on and off the track, although I fear that Rebecca
Adlington might have been less than thrilled by her description as „that blonde girl who
won the swimming‟! Many of the candidates did see this event as a chance to restore
Britain‟s international reputation after last year‟s riots. Those who argued that the
Olympics could do wonders for multi-culturalism and world peace revealed admirable
idealism, although there was perhaps some wishful thinking about the impact of sport on
society or international relations.
Those who opposed the Games being held in London usually pointed to the enormous
cost and questioned whether such vast sums could not be better spent, particularly in a
recession. Of course, the decision to award the Games to London was made some
years ago when the world was a rather different place economically but it was still a fair
point to make. Some complained about the way tickets had been sold and others were
very worried about congestion and overcrowding. Some of the anxieties were rather
naive and I doubt if the frequently expressed concern about litter was a convincing
reason to call off the Olympics at this late stage. Fears about terrorism were much more
convincing.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
10
Q.2
This was a topic where the candidates had much more to say and very few seemed
to be struggling for ideas. It was perfectly sensible and appropriate to use „scare
tactics‟ here and some were unrelenting in the picture they painted of the baleful
consequences of smoking on health. However, I was not always convinced that
inventing highly dubious statistics added to the impact of the message. Sometimes
the statistics were so ridiculous that they actually had the opposite effect and
completely undermined the intended purpose. Similarly, the use of „case studies‟ was
often a source merely of unintended comedy as these earnest moral fables were
usually unrealistic.
The better answers thought about the specific audience and, although the health
issue was clearly very important, they perhaps realised that threats of a distant, if
premature, death were not likely to be totally effective on teenagers, who, after all,
consider themselves immortal. The good answers widened the issues to include the
cost of cigarettes and, most effectively perhaps, the effects on others and on
personal attractiveness, particularly where the opposite sex was concerned. Many
tried to undermine the idea that smoking is „cool‟ or enhances one‟s personal image.
Others dealt with peer pressure (or in some cases „pier pressure‟) and suggested
that the „friends‟ who tempted anyone to smoke were perhaps not the real thing.
Some were uneasy with the idea of a leaflet and wanted to give a talk, design a
poster or write an article but most seemed quite comfortable with the format.
However, the use of first-person was not ideal in a leaflet and some became too
„personal‟ and anecdotal. Bullet points are a feature of leaflets but some candidates
relied too heavily on simple lists and tried to create the illusion of substance by
covering a lot of paper with very little writing. There were moments when Gertrude‟s
request for „more matter with less art‟ came to mind.
Audience was an issue in this task and some just aimed their leaflet at anyone who
happened to be a smoker. Some responses were clearly aimed at very young people
and that was fine but most clearly had teenagers as their target audience and used
direct address effectively.
The issue of technical accuracy is relevant to both writing tasks and, regrettably, it is
not uncommon to see scripts, even on this tier, which are littered with technical
errors. Many of the errors are very basic and cannot be ignored or dismissed merely
as „slips‟. Most candidates would be well advised to remember that technical
accuracy contributes one third of the marks in writing.
The best are always a pleasure to read and display sophistication, maturity and
technical control but a lot of the candidates undermine their efforts with a lack of
attention to accuracy.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
11
ENGLISH LITERATURE
General Certificate of Secondary Education
January 2012
Chair of Examiners:
Jonathan Harrington, formerly Teacher Training Coordinator,
Brockenhurst College, Brockenhurst, Hampshire
Chief Examiner:
Margaret Graham, former Head of English, Ysgol Bryn Alyn,
Wrexham
UNIT 1
General Comments
Once again, candidates had been well prepared for this examination, and the majority coped
well with the papers, which, of course, would be particularly significant for those for whom
this was their final attempt at this exam under the rules of unitisation, as well as serving as a
grounding for the next stage in Unit 2. As in the summer, and, indeed, as in the legacy
examinations, Of Mice and Men was the most frequently studied text. Indeed, it seemed to
be even more popular this time, on both tiers, and many examiners saw responses on no
other texts, although all texts had been studied, albeit, in some cases, in just a few centres.
Of course, the Steinbeck novel allows for a measure of stability in this changing world, and is
new and fresh to the students, who respond well to it, but teachers can be reassured that the
other texts on the list elicit equally engaged and informed responses.
The “cunning plan” to aid candidates by making Of Mice and Men the first text in the paper
means that there are fewer rubric infringements than was the case with the legacy papers,
although there are still some who manage to attempt every question on every text, as well
as some who pick and mix from the questions, having a go at whatever extract takes their
fancy, and then choosing an essay from another text - which they may, or may not, have
read. Despite this, there are few incomplete papers, although some are very short, and
some unbalanced: organisation of time is a point which needs to be reinforced time and time
again, to avoid the three side extract and one side essay responses - the familiar, if
modified, mantra, of 20, 40, 60 (minutes per question) should be second nature to
candidates being prepared for Unit 1; making a note of the timings on the actual script is
perfectly acceptable, and seems to keep on track those who adopt the practice.
Organisation of timing for the unseen poetry is also important, and one way of organising the
recommended hour could be 10, 20, 20, 10 (ten minutes for reading, thinking and
annotating, twenty minutes per poem, then ten minutes for comparing and contrasting). The
unseen poems worked very well once again, proving both accessible and stretching at the
same time. Time and again, examiners were impressed by the level of thoughtfulness and
sensitivity in responses from candidates of all abilities.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
12
HIGHER TIER
Section A
Most candidates coped well with the extract from Of Mice and Men, which allowed for different
levels of access. While it was useful to set the extract in an overall context, of who was speaking
to whom and why, less successful were those candidates who lost focus and drifted off into a
“George and Lennie” essay, or an unnecessarily long discussion of what had happened prior to
the scene, including the incident in Weed, the historical background of the novel, or those who
pounced on the reference to George saying, “I‟d shoot myself” and linked this to his shooting of
Lennie. Some confused the boss with Curley, and some paid undue attention to his speech and
behaviour without linking that to the focus of the question. It was interesting to see how many of
Lennie‟s many admirers were upset by George‟s treatment of him, and consequently took
against him, missing the subtext of possible reasons for his behaviour. Others were confused as
to the reasons for his being angry with Lennie, whether it was for speaking or not speaking.
Better answers, however, showed an understanding of George‟s nervousness, loyalty to Lennie,
and appreciated how that had an influence on how he behaves at the end of the extract. The
very best picked up on features such as George‟s hesitation, his prompt replies, suggesting a
measure of forethought, and his bitter humour or sarcasm when speaking to Lennie.
Of the two essays on Of Mice and Men, the least popular was the empathy one on Slim,
although most who did choose this handled it well, with echoes of Slim‟s speech and focus on
key parts of the novel, such as his conversation with George, Curley‟s fight with Lennie (where
one candidate had Slim commenting “that high-heeled, pathetic bully pimp had it coming and
even though I knew there‟d be trouble, a part of me didn‟t mind seeing him put in his place, a
place even he could understand” - overview, detail and sensitivity to characters and relationships
aplenty there!) and the ending. Reference to the novel‟s context was also often sensitively
achieved, with Slim reflecting on the unusualness of the friendship between George and Lennie
in the world of the itinerant worker, for example. Some candidates perhaps took Slim‟s God-like,
all knowing qualities to an extreme, as he seemed to have complete understanding of what had
happened in the barn between Lennie and Curley‟s wife, but most managed to deal convincingly
with this, too. Some candidates, however, seemed unprepared for this type of question, and
attempted clumsy, “If I was Slim I would feel....” type responses, whilst an unfortunate few
confused the characters, and wrote as Crooks, or even, on one occasion, Curley. Some ignored
the question altogether and just wrote what they knew about the novel. Whilst, in these cases,
credit is given for knowledge and understanding shown, such responses are clearly self
penalising, and it would be fair to say that, in general, the extended writing on the set text tends
to be the weakest of the three responses in the Unit.
This was also the case with the second essay choice on Of Mice and Men. The best answers to
the question on friendship, as ever, kept a tight focus on the question, but some did drift off into
a pre-prepared loneliness essay. Of course, those who started off with an overview of the overall
loneliness of the characters on the ranch, and used this as a framework for their discussion of
the consequent importance of friendship, were on solid ground. Some chose to reproduce their
equally pre-prepared George and Lennie essay, and, whilst this could get them so far, it did not
address the “how” in the question as successfully as those responses which formed an overview
of friendship on the ranch, its desirability and danger, backed up by apt examples. Those who
tried to include Curley and his wife as an example struggled a bit to make that fit, whilst others
left no friendship unturned, starting off with Lennie and the dead mouse. Indeed, one response
highlighted “the friendship between Lennie and soft objects”!
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
13
Anita and Me had fewer takers this round of examinations, but those who had studied it
responded well, many carefully tracking the detail of the extract, which resulted in an
understanding of a build up of tension. Others discussed the contrast between mama‟s
obliviousness with papa‟s disappointment and severity, whilst the very best saw the melodrama,
the effect of Meena‟s standpoint, and focused on some of the rich imagery of the extract. An
indicator of the success of the extract was the good responses it elicited from those who had
somewhat wilfully decided to tackle it unseen. In responses to Q. 2. (b), Anita was the most
popular choice of the character with the greatest impact on Meena, with the best answers
tracing the changing dynamic of the relationship. As ever, and as with all texts, responses
tended to be more assured in their discussion of the earlier parts of the novel, and, also, as with
all texts where a film is available, some responses seemed to be dependent on this. Whilst film
versions can be a useful resource, candidates need to know that they are to be assessed on
their knowledge of the written text. Of those who chose to write about prejudice in the novel, the
second essay choice, some wrote in detail, highlighting key characters and incidents, including
the impact of sometimes unconscious prejudice on the family members, whilst others were more
superficial in their discussion. The best responses on all texts are able to move from general to
specific and back again. Underpinning overview with key events from throughout the text is a
useful skill to practice.
To Kill a Mockingbird was the second most popular choice of text. There was plenty of
opportunity for discussion of selected detail in the extract, but relatively few took full advantage
of this, with significant numbers failing to deal with the later parts of the extract; selecting and
highlighting key details from throughout the extract is another skill that benefits from practice.
Some candidates seemed unsure of who exactly Aunt Alexandra is and became overly
concerned with her perceived racist treatment of Calpurnia. Perhaps the fact that the character
of Aunt Alexandra does not feature in the film was a contributory factor here? Other, better,
answers, allowed themselves to see the humour in the “Scoutseye” view, and addressed the
detail of the extract, such as Scout and Jem‟s glances, the “dull permanence” of the suitcase
hitting the bedroom floor, and the description of Aunt Alexandra‟s corset constrained figure. The
essay on the character eliciting the most sympathy was the more popular option, and was
usually well done. Tom Robinson was a frequent choice, followed by Boo Radley, and then
Atticus and Mayella. Of course, any character can be chosen, so long as a good case is made
by the candidate, and the response is supported by detailed reference to the text. Indeed, some
came a bit unstuck, as they had confidently launched themselves into an essay on Tom, then
found they could not find that much to say - another reminder of how important it is that
candidates are secure in their detailed knowledge of the text. Some chose to consider a range of
candidates deserving of sympathy before making a final decision of which character is the most
worthy, and that, too, is an appropriate approach. Those who chose the question on childhood
sometimes found it difficult to move beyond a discussion of the relationship between Jem and
Scout, whilst some reproduced the ‟growing up„ question asked in a past paper. Candidates
sometimes seem unprepared, or unable, to move beyond prepared responses. Perhaps this is
an indication of the relative immaturity of some candidates, but it is something of which teachers
need to be aware when preparing their students for the exam. Having said that, those who could
think on their feet wrote perceptively of other children in the novel, and how they reflected
attitudes within the community, the effect of Scout as narrator, and the contrasts between the
adult world and that of the children. Again, selected detail about events from throughout the
novel was a useful discriminator, with those who just focused on events before the trial limiting
their own achievement.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
14
There were very few responses to I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings this time. Again, those who
tackled the extract unseen showed what a successful exam text it is, as they wrote with empathy
and engagement, if they could not appreciate the complexity of her feelings, owing to their not
appreciating its context. Those who could set the extract within the context of Maya‟s
experiences did better still. The question on Daddy Bailey, in Q. 4. (b) was a relatively
straightforward character question, and those who knew the text fared well here, whilst with the
second essay choice, candidates were more confident in writing about prejudice, rather than
humour, which is often more of a challenge to appreciate, particularly, perhaps, in the
examination hall.
Chanda’s Secrets had again been tackled by a significant minority of students, across the ability
range. As ever, those who recognised the context of the extract fared best; some were unsure of
where Chanda was or of her mother‟s situation. However, the richness of detail in the extract
provided plenty of opportunity for the discussion of mood and atmosphere, and better
candidates made use of this. Some, for example, linked the abandoned atmosphere with the
abandoned state of Mama; some tracked the mounting tension as Chanda approaches the hut,
the significance of the word “it” and some noted the emotional impact of the final words.
The “most sympathy” question was the most popular choice of essay, with Esther the most
frequently chosen, followed by Mama and Chanda. Better answers took their discussion of
Esther, for example, as a starting point, before developing their answer to consider her treatment
by the community, and with Chanda, there was great sympathy for how she was forced to adopt
such huge responsibilities at such a young age, as well as for her the impact events had on her
ambitions and life.
Section B
The advice in the rubric in the unseen poetry section makes it clear that there is no prescribed
approach to comparing and contrasting, but it became apparent again that dealing with the two
poems and comparing and contrasting them largely, or completely, separately works very well
for the majority of candidates, whilst attempting an integrated approach often leads to
fragmented comments, often with undue emphasis on layout or device spotting. It is certainly
possible to achieve the very highest marks by writing about the poems separately, then
comparing and contrasting at the end.
The theme of failed relationships struck a chord with candidates, and, although there were fewer
bizarre interpretations than has sometimes been the case in the past, there were some quirky
ideas which may well have been avoided by a more careful first reading. For example, some
misread the first line of Rejection as “Rejection is an orange” and then tried to fit in the reference
to the citrus fruit to the sense of bitterness (one even thought it referred to vomit, a signifier of the
distress felt); others thought it was grey, having missed the key word “not”, but most got the gist
nevertheless, with many noting the significance of the repetition of the word “rejection”. The
reference to the council worker‟s jacket made for some confusion: some read it as “counsellor”
or some thought the relationship had failed owing to the shame of a low status job. The
counsellor misinterpretation led some to base their whole reading on this, such as it being about
a child being rejected for adoption. Many, however, did get the idea of public embarrassment (a
nicely confident comment read, “The orange start distracted me, as it‟s different to the norm. It
shakes up what you are thinking and makes you re-think what you know,”) and there was plenty
of imagery for candidates to access, such as “ashes” which was often linked to the death of the
relationship, “the scraping of fingernails/On a blackboard perceived as “cringemaking” and the
“layer of skin missing” eliciting particularly perceptive interpretations. The final stanza also
reinforced the idea of rejection, and there were some interesting ideas about the last line, too.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
15
Less successful responses were overly concerned with feature spotting, identifying the mark
scheme, or asserting how the poet appeals to all five senses, then failing, understandably, to
detect all five. The nadir of pointless comment on Rejection may well be the following: “In this
poem the rhyming scheme in the first stanza is A, B, C, D, E, F, G. But the second stanza is
longer and has the only rhymes in it, A, B, C, D, E, B, B, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and the last stanza A,
B, C, D.” A little learning can be, indeed, a dangerous thing.
The response to the second poem on this tier, Years Ago by Elizabeth Jennings, tended to be
the discriminator for the highest marks, with one marker being those who noticed the shift in tone
at the end, and the effect of the final line. The first line: “It was what we did not do that I
remember” engaged candidates from the start, who showed confidence in tackling what it may
mean, and many identified a dream like quality to the memories then itemised, speculating that
they may suggest a youthful, holiday romance. As always, the ones who tackled details such as
“We threw time in the river....” (one candidate commented how this “gives the idea of time spent
carelessly...because you know it‟s all about to come crashing down and they‟re just chucking
time away”) the swans, the day entering evening “with a sweeping gesture” and so on were
easily into the higher marks.
Most compared the content, often noting that Rejection could be seen as a sort of sequel to
Years Ago, or of how one was about the start of a relationship and one about a relationship that
never really got started. The references to pain in both were also noted, and even, and, it had to
be said, less usefully, the references to bread in each! A natural comparison and contrasting of
the poems emerging from reading and reaching an understanding of both, perhaps starting from
a statement of preference, seems an accessible and natural approach to this task for the
majority of candidates.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
16
FOUNDATION TIER
Many of the points in the Higher Tier report are equally applicable to Foundation candidates,
who also acquitted themselves well, writing with confidence and engagement in responses
to the set text and the unseen poetry. As on the Higher Tier, those candidates who are really
familiar with the format of the paper are at an advantage, as this avoids rubric infringements,
such as writing on multiple texts, mixing and matching extract and essay, and mismanaging
timings. Although such incidences are relatively rare, it is distressing to see candidates
making such errors.
Also as on the Higher Tier, Of Mice and Men was by far and away the most frequently
studied set text, with a much smaller number answering on To Kill a Mockingbird and fewer
still on the other three texts. Chanda’s Secrets was the third most popular text in this round
of examinations.
Section A
In the extract from Of Mice and Men, as always, close reading was the key to the higher
marks here: picking up on details such as George breaking in “loudly” (and the significance
of this), his hesitations, lying, and his behaviour towards Lennie. Most showed an awareness
of the change in his speech and behaviour, and while some stayed at the level of
paraphrase, those who tracked through, selecting and highlighting, were aptly rewarded. It is
worth reinforcing the point that the shorter the quotation the better; some responses were
dependent on very long quotation and relatively perfunctory discussion.
The empathy task on Slim worked well for most of those who chose it, although, as on the
Higher Tier, some found difficulty adopting the first person, let alone Slim‟s voice. Some
worked hard to include relevant quotations - again, the maxim the shorter the quotation the
better is useful to bear in mind here, and, of course, direct reference in the way of specific
names and details is equally worthy of credit. The best answers included reference to key
events from throughout the novel, including its denouement (unlike the Slim who mused
about George and Lennie, “I wonder what happened to them? Maybe they got away.”)
Many also included reference to main themes such as loneliness and the American Dream.
With the second essay, some struggled to think of any other friendship than that between
George and Lennie, although Candy and his dog was probably the most popular choice, and
also enabled candidates to make the connection between the two relationships. Some
decided to write about relationships, rather than friendship, thus producing responses which
fitted where they touched. Some wrote about Curley and his wife, making the point that it
was a relationship without friendship - a bit tenuous, perhaps, but some made it work. Clear
focus on the question, combined with specific detail from throughout the text, as always, is
the key to success, on this tier, as on the Higher.
Relatively few candidates on this tier had studied Anita and Me, but those who had done so
recognised the context of the extract, and made sensible comments about Meena‟s speech
and behaviour. Those who accessed the highest marks picked up on details such as the
chapatti turning “to a clump of barbed wire” and the significance of this. The more popular of
the two essays was the one about an important relationship. Most chose Anita, about whom
there is plenty to say, but some chose Sam Lowbridge, and others wrote about members of
her family. As always, so long as there is a fair case made, and answers include detailed
reference to the text, any choice can be valid. The second question, on prejudice, was a
minority choice, and the discriminating factor here was candidates‟ detailed knowledge of
the text, with some answers being underdeveloped.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
17
To Kill a Mockingbird, although not frequently studied at this level, often elicited engaged
and detailed responses. As on the Higher Tier, the humour in the extract tended to elude
candidates in an examination (understandably, perhaps) but they wrote with empathy for the
children‟s plight at being confronted by Aunt Alexandra. Q.3 (b) was the more popular choice
of essay by far. Those who made good use of the bullet points were able to extend their
answers, and Tom Robinson and Boo Radley were the most frequently chosen characters.
Although there are plenty of events where children are important to choose from, very few
chose this question.
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is a very rare choice on this tier. As on the Higher Tier,
those who chose to tackle it unseen enjoyed writing about the extract, and then had a good
go at Q.4 (b), using the extract to base their writing on.
Candidates who had studied Chanda’s Secrets found plenty to comment on in the extract; all
showed empathy, and those who selected details from the extract to discuss accessed the
higher marks. Responses to both essays tended to be narrative driven, although most
candidates showed a secure knowledge of the text. As a colleague commented, it will be
interesting to see how this text develops in the future.
Section B
As on the Higher Tier, candidates responded well to the poems. The conversational tone of
First Love proved accessible, and most got the idea of a one sided conversation. Indeed,
some speculated, validly, that it was like overhearing a phone conversation, and at least one
actually linked its sonnet form to its content and theme. Candidates were moved by the
desperation of the speaker and compared that to the bitterness and resignation evident in
Rejection. Both poems elicited plenty of personal engagement, such as those urging the
poets to move on. One candidate wrote, “Rejection gave me goosebumps when I was
reading it”, whilst another confessed, “I can really relate to this - it‟s happened to me. Indeed,
most managed to access some of the imagery, and those who really worked at unpicking the
language and its effects were aptly rewarded. It was telling, on both tiers, how many could
relate personally to the scenarios in the poems, which proved accessible in both content and
theme.
So, overall, candidates on both tiers gave every impression of having derived a lot from their
study of Literature so far. They had been well prepared for what they were required to do,
evidenced by the relatively small number of rubric infringements. If one aspect would benefit
from further practice, it would be the extended writing on the set text, where some
candidates do not always appear to have the same confidence in tackling the questions.
GCSE English, English Language and English Literature Examiner's Report - January 2012/MLJ
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
18
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