GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
AS/Advanced
SUMMER 2013
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at:
https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en
Online results analysis
WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is
restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer
at the centre.
Annual Statistical Report
The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall
outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC. This will be available at:
http://www.wjec.co.uk/index.php?nav=51
Unit
Page
LL1
1
LL2
5
LL3
10
LL4
14
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2013
Advanced Subsidiary
LL1: Critical Reading of Literary and Non-Literary Texts
Principal Examiner:
Sally Llewellyn
It is vital that candidates are equipped with a wide ranging set of technical terms before
attempting this exam. The best responses this summer used a wide range of technical terms
confidently (AO1), explored approaches meaningfully (AO2) and made thorough comparisons
and contrasts between the texts (AO3). Contextual material (AO3) was most effectively used
when relevant to meaning.
Weaker responses often struggled to use technical terms, had difficulty linking the approaches
identified to the meanings in the text and failed to compare and contrast effectively. There are
many resources available on the WJEC website to assist with the teaching of terminology as
well as frameworks for supporting comparative responses. It is vital that centres make full use
of the resources on offer to best serve the interests of their candidates.
Section A: Poetry pre-1900 and unseen text
There was a reasonably even distribution of responses to the poetry choices offered in Section
A. On the whole candidates handled the comparisons well, identifying the key connections
between the texts. There were several recurring errors in relation to poetic form on question 1,
with many candidates misidentifying the Bradstreet poem as a sonnet. Other errors in relation
to form were the confusion of pentameter/tetrameter and rhyming couplets/alternate rhyme.
Centres should ensure careful teaching of poetic form in preparation for this section of the
paper. Much biographical contextual information was evident, exploring Bradstreet’s marriage
and family background as well as her puritan beliefs. There was some tendency to label the
poem ‘romantic/Romantic’ which caused some confusion. Productive links were made to the
unseen web advice article about happy marriages, with many candidates identifying the
differences in attitudes to marriage over a period of several centuries. The modes of address
used in both texts and the variety of sentence mood proved to be productive areas for
comparison.
On question 2 candidates engaged well with Shelley’s poem, with better responses able to
explore Shelley’s revolutionary radicalism and linking that to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein
in the news article used for comparison. Candidates wrote well about the connecting theme of
tyranny and oppressive regimes revealing a sensitive appreciation of the literary and linguistic
techniques used by both writers in the presentation of the statues of Ozymandias and Saddam
Hussein. The polyphonic nature of the sonnet caused some confusion as candidates
sometimes stumbled in their comments on narrative viewpoint. Errors of poetic form were also
an issue here as in question 1. There were several different rhyme schemes suggested for the
sonnet, many of which were inaccurate. Poetic form is vital to an appreciation of a poem’s
meaning and candidates should be prepared to embed their analysis of poetic structural
devices in the heart of the poem’s meaning and ideas. Contextual understanding of the news
article was reassuringly accurate with many candidates clearly moved by such an historic,
political event. The modifier ‘trunkless’ was unfamiliar to a large number of candidates, with
one candidate asserting that Ozymandias would be unable to travel without his trunk.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
Section B: Prose
The key to doing well on this section relies on knowing the texts extremely well in order that
pertinent selections relevant to the question can be made at speed. There are many approaches
to structuring a response that can be successful but the simplest and clearest is to track the
passage through line by line providing detailed integrated discussion and then to move on
quickly to the second part of the question. In the second part candidates should select at least
one other episode from the core and partner texts to develop their answer. It is possible to look
at more than one other example from each text, but candidates should guard against simply
identifying lots of episodes (at times almost as a bullet pointed list) and then failing to say
anything meaningful about the examples selected.
Masters: Stuart: A Life Backwards (Core text)
Ashworth: Once in a House on Fire (Partner text)
There was a reasonably even split between the candidates who attempted question 3 and
question 4. In question 3 the extract was handled well with many candidates engaging with
Stuart’s antisocial and aggressive behaviour, linguistic discussion of the use of taboo words was
beneficial. There was some mis-reading of the reference to Robert Louis Stevenson in relation to
Stuart’s Jekyll and Hyde persona. The wider question on violence saw candidates select well
from a variety of evidence of violent attacks in both texts. Violent father figures proved to be a
very productive link. The chapter ‘The Unmentionable Crime’ was often used purposefully here;
a section from which was used for the extract in question 4. The shocking extract was handled
well by the majority of candidates, although there was some confusion as to whether Sophie had
committed adultery or not. The wider question specifically asked candidates to focus on male
and female relationships which some candidates failed to address and selected examples that
explored relationships between characters of the same gender. Close reading of the question is
needed to avoid such basic slips. Other romantic relationships in the novels were effectively
explored, as well as male-female familiar bonds such as fathers and daughters and mothers and
sons.
Gibbons: Cold Comfort Farm (Core text)
Lawrence: Sons and Lovers (Partner text)
There was an even distribution of responses to questions 5 and 6 in this pairing that is
moderately popular with centres. The theme of loneliness was handled well by the majority of
candidates with the extract’s focus on Judith’s solitude proving an engaging starting point for
analysis. Imagery relating to Judith’s appearance was well-explored as well as contextual
references made to the Oedipus complex. Lonely mother figures was a clear focus for
comparison and produced some strong responses. Misspelling of ‘lonliness’ was a common
problem. In question 6 candidates responded well to the theme of jealousy. Urk’s behaviour and
language in the extract was meaningfully explored with stronger responses focusing on Gibbons’
use of humour in this extract, particularly the ironic speed at which Urk is able to transfer his
affections from Elfine to Meriam. Similarly to question 5, analysis in the second part of the
question tended to centre on mother figures and the feelings of jealousy evoked in relation to
their children pursuing their own lives.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
Capote: In Cold Blood (Core text)
Carey: True History of the Kelly Gang (Partner text)
Question 7 asked candidates to focus on male characters and this was the more popular of the
choices offered on this pairing but those who attempted question 8 effectively handled the
extract from the end of the novel describing Dick’s escape plan. Some of the responses to
question 8 struggled to find connections to the partner text. The strongest points of comparison
in relation to question 8 centred on the protagonists attempts to evade law enforcement
agencies, Dick and Perry leaving the murder scene or crossing the border into Mexico and Ned
running away from the police. Some thoughtful responses explored the metaphorical escapism
of Perry’s dreams and conversely, the emotional imprisonment of Ned’s relationship with his
mother. The extract in question 7 on the presentation of Herb Clutter had clearly been wellprepared by centres and candidates wrote well about the Master of River Valley Family, many
identifying the dramatic irony of Herb’s good health in the light of his impending murder. The
American Dream was often referenced as useful contextual background. In the second part of
the question the stronger responses produced a specific comparison of male characters such as
the role of fathers in both texts. This helped focus the response to produce some interesting
points of comparison and contrast between men such as Red Kelly, Herb Clutter, Walter
Hickock and Alvin Dewey.
Minhinnick: Watching the Fire-Eater (Core text)
Bryson: The Lost Continent (Partner text)
This pair of texts is studied by a small number of centres and the responses were reasonably
evenly divided between the two questions. Minhinnick’s presentation of the male characters in
the extract for question 9 was rich with imagery as are so many of the stories in the collection,
many candidates commented on the idea of the men symbolised by their garden tools clustered
together on the wall. Better responses explored the structure of the passage and the revelation
at the end of the passage that Bylo is only 22 years of age. Connections to other male
characters often referred to Mr Piper, Bryson’s next door neighbour, as well as rugby players
and the men encountered by Minhinnick in Rio. The presentation of change in question 10
showed an appreciation of the ironic nature of progress in relation to the country pub, many
identified the humour in the fact that the previous owner had been turned away from the pub for
failing to measure up to the desired level of clientele. This question afforded candidates the
opportunity to raise contextual issues related to urbanisation and commercialisation. Stronger
responses were able to explore the writer’s attitudes to change as often detrimental to society,
such as the demolition of Bryson’s grandparents’ home or the many examples of man’s
destruction of the environment in the core text.
Niffenegger: The Time Traveler’s Wife (Core text)
Wells: The Time Machine (Partner text)
Question 11 was a popular question which included some interesting explorations of the
presentation of Clare’s experiences in this extract. Discussion of discourse features and
grammar were productive in conveying Clare’s description of this painful experience to Henry. A
useful partner passage identified by candidates was Henry’s violence towards Jason as a direct
response to Clare’s revelations in the extract. In the partner text, the violent attacks of the
Morlocks and the necessity of the time traveller to respond with violence to defend himself was
the subject of most analysis. This allowed candidates the opportunity to engage with contextual
factors such as Wells’ use of the political metaphor of class warfare. The extract in question 12
was very well explored with many candidates comment meaningfully on the description of the
sick room in contrast with the imagery of the natural world Clare sees from the window. Simple
sentences were effectively explored in relation to the passage although there remains some
confusion of identification in relation to sentence types. Connections on the theme of death
looked at the death of Henry’s mother as a comparison to Lucille’s death in the extract. Henry’s
own dramatic demise was well explored, as were Clare’s miscarriages. In the partner text
Weena’s death was the main point of comparison with many candidates commenting on the
apparent lack of emotion from the time traveller in response to this tragic turn of events.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
Mehta: A River Sutra (Core text)
Carver: Short Cuts (Partner text)
Question 14 proved to be the more popular of the 2 questions offered. In question 13 the
majority of candidates were able to explore the attitudes of the Jain Monk and his father in
this extract. Stronger responses explored the father’s motives for attempting to dissuade his
son from following his chosen path. In the second part of the question, examples of suffering
elsewhere in the core and partner texts included other father figures who have suffered such
as Master Mohan and his relationship with Imrat. In the partner text women who are made to
suffer at the hands of cruel men, such as Doreen being made to suffer by Earl and the girls
who suffer physically in ‘Tell the Women We’re Going’. Responses to question 14 tackled
the passage about the sexual encounter between Rima and Nitin Bose very well. The natural
imagery used to describe the encounter proved rich for analysis. Other passionate
encounters covered by the candidates in their responses included references to the
courtesan and Rahul Singh in the core text and the short story ‘Neighbours’ in the partner
text. Many candidates commented on the more violent and detrimental presentation of
sexual relationships in the partner text linking this back to the sexual exploitation of Uma in
the core text. This question produced some very strong responses.
There are several key points to note for future examinations:







Section A responses are often rich with terminology but sometimes struggle to
explore meaning or impact.
Section B responses explore meaning thoughtfully but must also include a wide
range of linguistic and literary terms.
Errors noted this summer include the misidentification of vocatives and
personification, as well as confusion over poetic forms.
Candidates should aim to spell writer’s names accurately – Bradstreet became
Bradshaw and Bradston, Shelley was a woman and Niffenegger and Mehta had their
surnames spelt in a variety of ways.
When a candidate employs the phrase ‘the use of’ followed by a quotation this
usually suggests a lack of specific terminology. Candidates should aim to specify the
name of the technique being explored by using the exact linguistic or literary term
before copying out the selected quotation.
Candidates need to clarify the differences between dialogue and direct speech.
Responses should be clear, coherent and accurate, common misspellings included:
peice, repitition, similie, metaphore, sentance, eachother, alot, trippling, pre-modifyer,
would of/could of.
4
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2013
Advanced Subsidiary
LL2: Creative Writing
Principal Examiner:
Catherine Porter
The assessment for this unit is based on a folder of work of approximately 3,000 words,
comprising three pieces in total, each of approximately 1,000 words. Candidates are
required to produce:
(a)
(b)
(c)
one literary piece of original writing
one non-literary piece of original writing
one commentary on both pieces of original writing.
Creative Writing
‘Candidates will be required to produce two separate pieces of original creative writing, each
of approximately 1000 words (less for verse). Each piece of writing is equally weighted.
Tasks:
(a) One piece of writing must be literary, inspired by study of the candidate’s wider
independent reading.
(b) The second piece must be non-literary: journalism, reviews, information texts,
etc.’
WJEC English Language and Literature Specification p. 13
The relevant assessment objective for both pieces of original writing expects candidates to:

demonstrate expertise and creativity in using language appropriately for a
variety of purposes and audiences, drawing on insights from linguistic and
literary studies (AO4).
Task Setting
Most candidates submitted work in both literary and non-literary genres.
Once again, best practice was observed where centres had taught a wide range of tasks, as
this provided candidates with the opportunity to write in a range of different forms and
styles. This allowed candidates the freedom to play to their strengths and to select the two
pieces (one literary and one non-literary) that best reflected their writing skills. Thematic links
between the literary and non-literary pieces aided candidates in their commentaries.
Moderators saw a range of interesting work. At the top of Band 4 genre-specific prose was
once again superb. This year, following the last round of CPD, dystopias were very popular
and on the whole candidates wrote well in this genre. A number of poetry anthologies were
submitted and they met with varying degrees of success. It is always advisable for candidates
to submit an introduction contextualising their poems. On the whole the poetry seen this year
was disappointing as it was often immature in terms of tone and content.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5
Once again, it is necessary to remind centres that the literary piece of writing should be
inspired by wider reading. N.B. this text should not be the one studied for LL1. Where
candidates cite an LL1 text that has not been studied at the centre a covering note should be
included with the sample. Candidates are still referring to films and television programmes
as the stimulus for their literary writing: this is not acceptable. It is the centre’s responsibility
to ensure that the wider reading selected by candidates is appropriately challenging for an
academic AS course.
Once again, the wider reading text was used inappropriately be some centres. The primary
intention of stimulus material is for it to inform candidates’ understanding of theme,
form and generic conventions: candidates are not meant to reproduce the content of
that material in an alternative form. Some centres persist in allowing candidates to write
narrative fiction from the perspective of the character in the book they have studied. In many
cases these responses are in fact reading responses - empathy pieces which lack the
originality that is required for this element of the course and are more suitable to KS3. There
were once again examples of write-ons and extra chapters. This kind of task is not in the
spirit of the specification and is often self-penalising as candidates fail to maintain the voice
of the original author.
Successful non-literary tasks included speeches, issue-based magazine articles, broadsheet
articles, reviews and travelogues. For the non-literary writing, it is very important that time is
spent prior to writing examining the generic conventions of the form of writing that is to be
undertaken. However, it is not the intention that all candidates be taught a piece of stimulus
material to respond to. For example, this year, there were examples of all candidates at a
centre submitting film reviews on the same film. This approach is unacceptable.
It is also inadvisable for candidates to base their non-literary writing on the content of their
literary piece. This year a number of candidates submitted interviews with themselves as the
‘author’ of their short stories. These pieces were often unconvincing in terms of content,
audience and purpose. Other problem tasks included leaflets, agony aunt letters and tabloid
articles - candidates generally scored poorly on these pieces.
The over-rewarding of technical inaccuracy remains a problem. It is worth reminding centres
that demonstrating ‘expertise…in using language’ means being technically accurate.
Word limits were problematic in a number of cases. The recommendation is that candidates
aim to write 1000 words per piece. A large number of candidates submitted non-literary
writing below 650 words. Quite often these pieces had been awarded a Band 4 mark by
centres which was quite unjustified as the pieces were not sustained. Work that is too brief is
self-penalising and this should be taken into account when assessing the work.
Plagiarism
Very few cases of plagiarism were identified this year.
Commentaries
The intention of the commentary is to formally assess candidates’ understanding of their
choices of content, form, and style in both pieces of the original written work, making points
of comparison and contrast between them.
6
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
The relevant assessment objectives for this task expect candidates to:



use integrated approaches to explore relationships between texts, analysing
and evaluating the significance of contextual factors in their production and
reception (AO3);
select and apply relevant concepts and approaches from integrated linguistic
and literary study, using appropriate terminology and accurate, coherent
written expression (AO1);
demonstrate detailed critical understanding in analysing the ways in which
structure, form and language shape meanings in a range of spoken and written
texts (AO2).
It is important that candidates address all three Assessment Objectives when tackling the
commentary. Some centres continue to ignore the need to teach the linguistic element of
the course. It is worth reminding centres of the glossary in WJEC Teacher Guide which is
very helpful for teaching all units of the course. Generalised terms such as ‘The
lexis/word…’ should be discouraged. Within the best commentaries candidates used a wide
range of literary and linguistic terms and discussed the impact of the features they had
identified within their own writing.
Best practice occurred where candidates adopted an analytical approach to the
commentary, evaluating how they had created meaning in their own writing. There were
examples where candidates had resorted to feature spotting. These responses tended to be
descriptive and there was little consideration of HOW meaning was created. As a general
rule candidates should avoid starting sentences with ‘I used’ because it encourages
description rather than analysis.
Candidates who had thematically linked their pieces were more successful in making
relevant comparisons. This approach should be encouraged across all centres. Where
writing was not thematically linked, candidates resorted to comparing by technique rather
than meaning and this led to very descriptive responses. Comparisons should be embedded
throughout the response. Some candidates wrote about each text separately and then
included a linking paragraph towards the end of their essay - this approach really limits the
score for AO3.
Candidates should be reminded that brief reference to their stimulus material and its
influence on their own writing should be provided in the commentary. Many candidates did
not include an appropriate wider reading text and some candidates cited completely
inappropriate material such as films and video games. There were also cases where
candidates spent far too long comparing their wider reading text to their own writing at the
expense of comparing their literary and non-literary writing
Word Limits
There were a number of issues with word counts.
A large number of candidates submitted work that was excessively long. Unfortunately, all
work past the maximum 1100 word limit (1000 words plus 10% tolerance) had to be
disregarded in the moderation process and candidates could not be credited for it. It is the
centre's responsibility to inform candidates that there is a maximum tolerance of 10% in
excess of the prescribed word count for each task in LL2. Teachers must stop marking
when the maximum tolerance is reached and credit only the work up to that point when
awarding marks for the task. External moderators will re-assess candidates' work up to the
maximum tolerance only.
7
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
In contrast, there were a considerable number of non-literary pieces that fell significantly
below the word count and this was equally problematic. If a candidate submits a piece of
only 500 words, that is half the expected amount. Assuming the style and tone are perfect
and there are virtually no errors, at best the centre can be looking to award around half
marks for the piece.
Candidates should complete an accurate word count for each piece of work and this should
be indicated on the cover sheet. Once again, there were several examples this year of
candidates who had inaccurately recorded word counts in order to meet or not exceed the
suggested 1000 word limit for each piece. Candidates are also now required to provide a
cumulative word count at the bottom of each page of every assignment.
Assessment
Many centres assessed with accuracy and had consistently applied the Assessment
Objectives.
There are centres, however, still generously assessing the folders and it was evident in
some centres that there was a recurrent trend for generosity. This necessitated a number of
adjustments in centres’ marks. Generosity usually occurred for one of two reasons – overinflating the marks on the commentaries and over-rewarding technically inaccurate work.
Best practice occurred where centres had formatively and summatively assessed
candidates’ work making reference to the relevant AOs. It is expected that teachers will
include supporting comments on all individual pieces of work submitted in order to justify the
centre’s marks. These comments should also be directed at the moderator and not the
candidate as marking at this stage should be summative and not formative.
Please note, the completion of candidate cover sheets is not optional. It is a requirement that
centres provide comments to support the whole folder. It is not acceptable to write ‘See
comments at the end of the piece of work’ on the cover sheet.
Administration and Organisation
Many centres carried out administrative procedures in a professional and efficient manner
and are to be wholly commended.
There were, however, examples of marks on folders not correlating with the marks that had
been entered online. Centres need to take care when entering marks onto the online system.
If errors occur it is the centre’s responsibility to inform the WJEC.
As always, there were some cover sheets that had not been signed by candidates and
teachers. It is worth reminding centres that all candidates, regardless of whether their
folder forms part of the sub-sample, are required to complete the form authenticating the
work submitted for internal assessment.
Some centres submitted work well past the deadline. This clearly had a detrimental effect
upon the timescale of the whole moderation process as moderators were left waiting for the
work to arrive.
8
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Some suggested areas for consideration when preparing for internal assessment in
future years:

Check the WJEC website to ensure that the correct documentation is being used.

Check all administrative procedures are completed correctly and adhere to
deadlines.

Ensure teacher and candidate signatures are in place.

Ensure the cover sheets have been completed by the teacher.

Use both summative comments in assessing candidates’ work.

Ensure that thorough moderation has taken place before final marks are submitted
online to WJEC.

Ensure that candidates’ work fully meets the specification requirements for literary
and non-literary writing forms.

Candidates need to be reminded of the need for technical accuracy – as well as
flair and originality - in their creative writing.

Ensure that commentaries incorporate a wide range of terms and that candidates
discuss the impact of their literary and linguistic choices.

Within the commentary, candidates should aim to make detailed and productive
connections between their literary and non-literary pieces.

Within the commentaries, candidates should be encouraged to discuss HOW
meaning is created in their own writing.

Across the folder written work should be clear, accurate, coherent and wellorganised.

Candidates must adhere to word limits.
9
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2013
Advanced
LL3: Analysing and Producing Performance Texts
Principal Examiner:
Paula Downey
The assessment of this unit is based on a folder of work of approximately 3000 words,
comprising of four pieces in total. Its focus is on texts produced for performance. It
encourages the development of extended formal essay writing skills, independent research
and creative writing linked to performance.
Section A: Dramatic texts in context
Candidates are required to produce a piece of work of approximately 1,500 words,
based on their study of two drama texts:


one play by Shakespeare selected for detailed study;
one play/performance text by another dramatist/writer.
The relevant assessment objectives for this section expect candidates to:

use integrated approaches to explore relationships between texts, analysing and
evaluating the significance of contextual factors in their production and reception (AO3);

demonstrate detailed critical understanding in analysing the ways in which structure,
form and language shape meanings in a range of spoken and written texts (AO2);

select and apply relevant concepts and approaches from integrated linguistic and literary
study, using appropriate terminology and accurate, coherent written expression (AO1).
Task Setting
Moderators saw a range of text pairings and tasks in the work submitted. King Lear, Much
Ado About Nothing and Othello proved to be very popular this year. The tragedies provided
a rich vein of study for candidates but the majority of Shakespeare’s work was present with
some centres offering candidates the opportunity to study texts such as Measure for
Measure and Richard III. Many centres had also allowed candidates to select from a range
of appropriate partner texts. Traditional drama texts were the most popular. Texts such as
A Streetcar Named Desire, Oleanna and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof provided suitable challenge
and covered a range of interesting themes. Some centres had chosen to offer media scripts
as a possible partner text. These scripts can work well if suitable challenge in woven in and
some excellent work was seen on The Godfather and Pulp Fiction. A minority of centres
submitted work on partner texts which had not be authorised. All centres must submit the
titles of their proposed texts for approval.
10
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Thematic tasks were, again, the most popular and tended to work extremely well. Tasks on
gender in general or on the presentation of men or women specifically, allowed for a
thorough study in most cases and allowed candidates to include some useful contextual
detail. There was some effective use of contextual detail with candidates referring to detail
which illuminated their arguments e.g. gender roles, colonialism, the Chain of Being, etc.
Where the phrasing of the questions offered signposts for the requirements of the unit,
candidates were much more focused in their writing. General headings such as ‘The theme
of death in....’ did not provide candidates with enough guidance on the comparative and
analytical demands of this unit. Overly complex tasks are also to be avoided as they often
hamper the candidates’ ability to engage succinctly with the argument.
The most successful essays adopted a comparative approach throughout and were able to
offer useful points of similarity or difference. The best essays were able to embed
comparisons to form a coherent and developed argument. A minority of centres treated the
partner text equally and it is worth noting that it should be used to illuminate the candidates’
study of the core text.
The use of terminology was incredibly varied again this year. The best responses identified
and explored a wide range of terminology effectively. Candidates must be encouraged to
include both literary and linguistic terminology as well as including spoken language features
such as dominant speaker, turn taking etc... where relevant. Many candidates focused on
how these terms created meaning and avoided the sometimes common ‘feature spotting’
approach. Stronger responses adhered closely to the Statement/Evidence/Analysis
structure and applied terminology to all quotations. Better responses showed awareness of
the texts as performance pieces through reference to specific RSC productions, etc.
Some areas for development:

A minority of candidates are still producing ‘literature’ essays for Section A with limited
evidence of integrated study - literary and linguistic analysis must be included.

A wider range of terminology would be beneficial as some work was much too
descriptive and lacking in analytical focus. Candidates must avoid vague terminology
such as ‘the word’ or ‘the phrase’.

A clearer focus is needed on HOW meaning is created by literary and linguistic
choices.

Contextual information needs to be embedded into the argument of the essay.
Candidates must avoid simply providing large sections of biographical or historical
information which does not move their argument forwarded - this is particularly
common in the open sections of essays.

Candidates must show an awareness of performance and of audience reception of
both their core and partner text.

If media texts are being used then candidates must use the screenplay as the primary
focus of their study and not the film itself.

Candidates must adhere to the specified word counts for this piece. Editing and
drafting are crucial skills in the internal assessment units.

Clear and well-crafted introductions are needed in order to establish a coherent and
focused argument.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
11
Section B: Producing texts for performance
Candidates are required to:


write two original spoken texts (one of which should be transcribed) for performance
for different audiences and purposes (approximately 1000 words in total);
evaluate the effectiveness of one of the texts they have produced (approximately 500
words).
The relevant assessment objectives for this section of the A2 internal assessment
expect candidates to:


demonstrate expertise and creativity in using language appropriately for a variety of
purposes and audiences, drawing on insights from linguistic and literary studies (AO4);
demonstrate detailed critical understanding in analysing the ways in which structure,
form and language shape meanings in a range of spoken and written texts (AO2).
Task Setting
Again, moderators saw some excellent and varied work in this section. Speeches,
monologues and movie voice-overs were all popular again this year. Some excellent work
had also been done on nature documentaries and this is a genre which works particularly
well as the ‘voice’ is very clear. There were also some very engaging sports commentaries a form which provided candidates with the opportunity to explore non-fluency features in
their texts. In the best work there was a clear sense of audience and purpose which enabled
candidates to write in an appropriate register. Providing a brief contextualisation for each
performance piece is undoubtedly best practice. This detail clearly establishes the audience
and purpose for the piece and demonstrates the candidate’s awareness of the genre.
The majority of centres provided one transcribed piece as required. Many included a helpful
key to the prosodic features used but some centres did not and this proved problematic. It is
also advisable that a common key for annotation is used across the centre to ensure
consistency. On the whole the range of prosodic features used was reasonable with nearly
all centres referring to dominant speaker, turn taking, stress, pauses and rising and falling
intonation. In the better responses, this was taken further with reference to other useful
features of spoken language such as pitch and pace and non-fluency features such as fillers
and voiced pauses. Most transcriptions were well done but there are some common errors
which moderators found across many centres. It is worth noting that punctuation should be
removed from transcribed pieces apart from apostrophes of possession and omission.
Capital letters should only be used for proper nouns and ‘I’ and stress should be used on
phonemes and not on whole words. These conventions must be applied rigorously.
On the whole, the evaluations showed good understanding and analytical skills were sound.
The majority of candidates wrote the evaluation on their transcribed piece and the evidence
suggests that this was perhaps the best approach as there were often more features upon
which to comment. Some centres gave their candidates a focused question for the
evaluation and this too seemed to work well. The best responses identified key literary,
linguistic, prosodic and paralinguistic features and explored how they created specific
meanings within the texts. A minority of candidates referred to both performance pieces in
their evaluations - this is not a requirement for this unit.
12
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Some areas for development:

Some tasks did not work well this year. Candidates tended to struggle with ‘real’
tasks such as conversations between friends, police interviews, etc. The tasks made
it difficult to establish a clear audience and purpose and moderators saw few
successful attempts.

Tasks where candidates write from an existing star’s perspective were problematic
as it is incredibly difficult to accurately emulate the speech patterns and mannerisms
of known figures. It is advisable, therefore, to avoid such tasks and instead to write a
piece ‘in the style of’ such a star.

Candidates need to provide clear guidance as to the audience and intended purpose
of the texts created. This can be done on the cover sheet or through a brief piece of
contextualization.

Candidates should provide two distinctly different original pieces i.e. it is inadvisable
to include two speeches unless they are markedly different in audience and purpose.

Pieces do not need to be thematically linked. In fact, this can often narrow the focus
of study.

‘Spontaneous’ texts need to include some non-fluency features e.g. fillers, repairs,
voiced pauses, etc.

Provide a key for the markers used in the transcribed piece

Marking texts with prosodic features proved to be problematic this year. The
following were the most common errors:

Misuse of capital letters.

Misuse of punctuation.

Stressing of whole words instead of phonemes.

Erratic placement of prosodic markers, indicating little understanding of
phonological impact.

Candidates should be advised to record their performance pieces in order to
ensure the ‘voice’ is realistic and to more accurately place prosodic markers.
Assessment
Some excellent work was evident in the assessment and moderation processes of many
centres. Detailed annotation referencing the relevant AOs was extremely useful to moderators
in demonstrating how bands had been decided upon. On the whole, assessment was sound
but there was a tendency toward generosity in some centres. This was particularly clear in
assessment at Band 4 across both sections of the unit. This generosity was notable in both
the essays and the evaluations where a much wider range of terminology needed to feature as
well as a detailed consideration of the impact of these literary and linguistic approaches.
Assessment of the performance pieces was generally secure.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
13
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2013
Advanced
LL4: Comparative Textual Analysis and Review
Principal Examiner:
Jan Mably
It was clear that many centres have acted on advice given in previous reports. Integrated
framework approaches to Section A’s unseen texts provided support for candidates of all abilities
and starting points for the more ambitious. In Section B few relied entirely on LL1 texts for
comparison and many centres had clearly encouraged and introduced a range of wider reading.
Some candidates used Shakespeare plays to make confident links. The inclusion of contextual
links for partner texts is becoming more common although this is still an area for development. In
many centres there was evidence of careful planning in both sections and through reading in
Section A, suggesting that candidates are being advised to use the first 15 minutes for
organization and question management.
Technical accuracy and presentation
In some centres, the standard of written work was poor. For example, candidates are expected to
use common conventions, such as capital letters and inverted commas for titles, and to write
legibly. Candidates need to be given practice at handwritten timed questions and reminders about
technical accuracy when these responses are assessed. If there are particular difficulties with
handwriting e.g. dyspraxia, alternative arrangements can be made by the centre.
Section A: Comparative Textual Analysis
AO1 : Expression, Organisation and Terminology
Please continue to remind candidates not to copy out the text descriptors but to read them
carefully as they are intended to be helpful. Introductions should also avoid re-phrasing the
question or making very general points about the texts having different purposes and audiences.
Successful introductions begin to compare and contrast the three texts, rather than merely dealing
with each in turn. Lengthy conclusions which only repeat earlier points or make very broad
generalizations are a waste of time which could be more valuably spent analysing the texts.
Appropriate terminology
In most centres, almost all candidates can use at least a basic linguistic and literary vocabulary,
although analysis of the effects of features identified will vary in quality. In some centres, however,
evidence of integrated study is much thinner. Sometimes the accurate use of key terms such as
sentence moods, word classes and poetic form is the exception rather than the rule. These
approaches need to be systematically reinforced and the use of very general expressions such as
‘negative lexis’ discouraged. It is disappointing when candidates who understand the texts are
aware of key features but lack the precise terms required to identify them. For example, many
referred to first and third person without using the term ‘pronoun’ or providing evidence.
Candidates should be reminded that the Section A question begins with ‘Using integrated
approaches...’.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
14
The attitudes trap
Limiting vocabulary, particularly the repetition of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ for attitudes,
was very much in evidence this year. These adjectives are useful as starting points or as
part of a concluding link. But candidates who use them several times on the same page,
along with ‘positivity’ and ‘negativity’ are failing to show off their vocabulary (AO1) and
limiting the precision they can achieve when expressing their understanding of texts (AO2).
Problems with particular terms

Juxtaposition can only happen within a text, and should not be used to express
contrasts between texts.

Lexical sets need to be identified by their semantic field e.g. architecture and
supported by the quotation of relevant words.

Alliteration applies only to the repetition of consonants (so not
‘exulting…emptiness’) which make the same sound (so not ‘chill and cold’ and
definitely not ‘the Thames’).

The possessive determiner in ‘my city’ was often referred to as a pronoun.
AO2: Understanding and Analysis
Those candidates who set aside at least 15 minutes for reading, planning and annotation are
more likely to absorb the texts as a whole and in comparison with each other. They are also
able to observe shifts in attitude, tone or viewpoint which can then be related to form and
structure.
There were many different and interesting readings of Wilde’s poem ‘Impression du Matin’
with some convincing work on poetic form and phonological devices. In some centres,
however, it was clear that poetic form had not been revised and some did not even
acknowledge that Text A was a poem. Some who had thought carefully about the text
descriptor understood that Wilde intended to create a picture in words, a helpful starting
point for the discussion of colours used in the first half of the poem. The last stanza was
sometimes perceptively seen as a portrait of isolation or poverty and by the most confident
as an implicit reference to prostitution. (The candidate who saw the ‘pale woman’ loitering
under a gas lamp as Queen Victoria was further from the mark.) Several, however, ignored
the final stanza altogether. A surprisingly common error was confusion between Ian
McEwan, the writer of Saturday (Text B), and his character Henry Perowne. It is important
for candidates to show their awareness of different genres and in some successful
responses this was used to account for variations in register, for example.
In centres where terminology has been well taught, there are usually a few candidates who
put all their efforts into labelling features rather than applying terminology to discuss
meaning. This results in weak, vague or repetitive explanations of the effects of features.
Popular but unhelpful expressions include: ‘for emphasis’, ‘to create imagery for the
reader’, ‘to show the writer’s opinion ’ and ‘to encourage the reader to read on’. Candidates
might be advised, if tempted to resort to such comments, to return instead to the question
which was set i.e. on this paper ‘. . . .compare and contrast the presentation of London. . .
.’ and to consider how the identified feature contributes. The most successful responses are
those where candidates select the textual details which are most useful to address the
question set.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
15
A03 Contexts and Comparisons
The comparative element
Most candidates understand that introductions and conclusions should be used to address
AO3. In the most successful, differences and similarities are explicitly pointed out; simply referring
to each of the texts in turn cannot be rewarded as highly. As claiming resemblances across three
texts often leads to overgeneralization, contrasts between texts can often be more illuminating
than similarities. Linking through features is a sound method but not the only successful one and
when the link is the use of alliteration (a very popular choice) there are limits to what can be said
about their use. Linking through attitudes works well for some combinations of texts and was a
popular approach with the London topic. As a starting point, candidates might be advised to
consider whether a text aims to praise or to criticize, being careful to avoid the ‘attitudes trap’. If
there is no obvious answer, as with Wilde’s ‘Impression du Matin’, this in itself can be illuminating.
Contextual factors
The quality of comment on contextual factors again varied markedly. This is sometimes a
question of knowledge. For example, the majority were able to say that Oscar Wilde was
writing in Victorian times but the influence and duration of the Industrial Revolution was often
much overstated. Contextualisation needs to find support from textual detail. The ‘yellow fog’
in the poem might indeed suggest pollution but fewer noticed the ‘country waggons’ in the
next stanza which spoke of a less developed London. In a few centres, candidates had
learned chunks of background attached to historical periods: this could only be of value if
very selectively used and this was rarely the case.
It is also necessary at this level to broaden the discussion of purposes beyond the basic list
(entertain, inform, persuade…) which should be regarded as a way of providing starting
points. Text B was an account of a fictional character’s observations and its chief purpose
was indeed to entertain. But more thoughtful responses spoke of the creation of character,
particularly the effect of Henry’s scientific background on his perspective. The internal
context of an extract might also be important: Henry was observing his neighbourhood in the
middle of the night, which many overlooked.
Section B: Reviewing Approaches
Texts and questions
Wuthering Heights remains most popular with Hard Times well represented, followed by
Orwell’s essays. We saw fewer responses centred on Hughes, Eliot and the Granta
collection. All five questions were popular but irrelevance was often an issue.
A01/A03: Essay planning and question handling
Many candidates make little use of the introduction which could be used to establish the
direction the response will take or to make links with the partner text(s). The question should
be chosen with the comparative element in mind. Planning is as essential for this section as
there is so much material to choose from. Those who have studied the novels should select
key passages to provide a sensible range on their chosen topic. These need not include the
opening of the text and there is no requirement to keep to chronological order. For the other
set texts, two really relevant poems or essays would be sufficient and preferable to several
more superficially discussed.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
16
This year, all five questions produced responses where irrelevance was a serious problem.
For example, ‘loyalty and/or friendship’ was a popular choice but where Wuthering Heights
was the core text, this led some to describe one of literature’s most famous love stories as a
friendship. Others wrote about friendship between Catherine Earnshaw and Nelly which led
to awkward overstatement. More thoughtful responses discussed the childhood friendship of
Catherine and Heathcliff before moving on to consider loyalty later in the novel. Candidates
are welcome to interpret the question as they choose: responses on this topic centred on
Hard Times sometimes spoke of Gradgrind’s initial loyalty to utilitarianism or contrasted
Louisa’s sisterly loyalty with Tom’s exploitation.
A01/A02: Evidence of integrated study
Quotations need to be chosen to support a relevant argument but also to provide
opportunities for analyzing the writer’s techniques. Candidates should be advised not to
quote without analysis. As this is an ‘open book’ examination for the core text, it is
unnecessary and unwise to invent or guess quotations. The internal context of the quotation
also needs to be made clear: sometimes quotations drift into answers with no indication of
the episode, situation or speaker. When Shakespeare plays are used as partner texts,
examiners frequently notice misquotation and are unable to fully reward points made in
discussion.
The most substantial part of the Section B response should be close analysis of the studied
text with relevant terminology, although it may be less sustained than in Section A. This
requires a thorough knowledge of the text so that the best material can be found quickly.
The most successful candidates find two or three key passages and provide detailed and
relevant analysis of the writing. But far too often, the use of terminology seems to be an
afterthought with superficial discussion of features which are poorly chosen for the question.
In some centres the responses were entirely made up of narrative, description and quotation
without any focus on the language: these approaches can show what the text has to say,
but not how. Candidates must aim to include a range of linguistic and literary concepts
and terms. Practice for Section B should include finding the most appropriate material for a
range of possible questions and practising the Statement-Evidence-Analysis technique.
A03: Links with other texts
Most candidates offered two partner texts and some three or four. Some candidates choose
one substantial partner text and connect it with different examples from the core text: this is
acceptable and using a single partner text well can produce responses of the highest quality.
All but the most able might have been better off choosing the most suitable of their partner
texts for the question chosen and allowing more time to develop the links and work on the
core text analysis. Trying to make connections where the partner text is not well chosen, or
not sufficiently well-known, often produces the weakest sections in the Section B responses.
Too many give little or no thought to partner texts when selecting from the core text. It is
important to make sure that links with partner texts keep to the set topic. A small number of
answers included no partner text and several mentioned wider reading only very briefly. The
wider reading element in Section B has produced some very successful work but candidates
need clear guidelines on the use of partner texts. Although it was encouraging to see a wide
variety of partner choices, a few centres failed to remind candidates that these must be texts
which have been read and studied. For example, in one centre, every candidate referred to
the recent Pryce-Huhne story but not to a particular piece of writing.
Most choose novels, which are easy to remember and often thematically rich but it is good to
see poems or famous speeches appearing too. In some centres, LL3 coursework drama
texts have been well used. LL1 texts can be successfully used when they are well suited to
the question chosen. As LL1 and LL3 texts have been studied in class, the inclusion of
contextual factors should be easy to manage.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
17
Advice on partner texts

Don’t attempt too many partner texts as this usually results in superficial,
unconvincing links. It is better to deal with two texts well than four too briefly.

Make sure that discussion of any other texts is relevant to the question set.

Make specific connections between your studied texts and partner text(s).
Contrasts and similarities are equally valid for discussion.

It is important to provide contexts for core texts and partner texts
AO3: Contextual factors
Candidates need to select the points from background and biographical knowledge on their
core text which are most relevant to the question set, rather than presenting it all in a chunk
at the start of the essay. Contextual factors should also be discussed during the course of
the answer and when partner texts are introduced. It is becoming more common for partner
texts to be contextualized but this tends to vary widely between centres. We expect
candidates to include the writer, the genre and the time period at least. Better candidates
sometimes use the different contexts of time and/or place to develop links between the texts.
Other factors include relevant biographical, social or historical detail and the internal context
of situation or events in a novel or play. For independent choices which are less well known,
it is sensible to provide an overview of the text.
The final version of this Principal Examiner’s Report will be available by 20 September
2013
GCE Examiners’ Report English Language and Literature (Summer 2013)/HL
18
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
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
19
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.