GCSE
English Literature
Unit 2F
Report on the Examination
47102F
June 2013
Version: V1.0
Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk
Copyright © 20yy AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this
booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any
material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE – 47102F – JUNE 2013
INTRODUCTION
Just over 45,000 candidates entered this unit in June 2013 and it is very pleasing to report that
many of these demonstrated clear evidence of strong teaching and better-developed skills in all
aspects of the assessment. Relationships continues to be the favourite cluster, closely followed by
Conflict, Q5 being the most popular overall. Despite being the second choice in their respective
clusters, it was delightful to see a few full mark answers on Q6 and Q8, the latter also achieving
the highest mean mark. However, the mean mark for the component remains at just below 42%,
indicating that there is still considerable need for improvement across the candidature.
AO1
Candidates are getting better and better at responding to poems and English teachers are to be
highly commended for achieving this on behalf of their students, particularly given the pressures of
time which can impact negatively on Literature in some schools. It has been an on-going theme of
this report that allowing students to develop their own approaches to, and ideas about poems is the
best way to prepare them for tackling the unseen poem in the exam situation. There is clear
evidence that this advice has been heeded, so that fresh, sometimes highly unusual responses are
often seen. Whilst welcoming this sign of progress, a note of caution must be sounded in terms of
validity of these responses. Ideas must be grounded in, and supported by, the text so that there
must be some credible evidence for an interpretation. This is not to say that examiners are looking
for “the right answer” as we all know there is no such thing, but sound evidence must be offered to
allow the examiner to identify the skill of “supported” or preferably, “explained” response. In these
cases, examiners would like to think “I never thought of that but I can see how someone else
might”.
Candidates can also have their achievements in this assessment objective undermined by overreliance on simple PEE-type responses. Whilst this approach does provide a structure which is
helpful in learning how to approach exam responses, it is a scaffold which should be removed once
the candidate is more secure. It is also a strait-jacket for more able students who should be
encouraged to move freely around and between the poems, writing in a deeper and more
developed fashion as they pursue their own ideas about the texts. However, a “developed”
response is not one in which the candidate says the same thing in several different ways:
“Cannons to the right of them...in front of them. This shows that they are surrounded by cannons
which means they are in danger, the imagery is that you are able to put yourself in the position of
being surrounded by cannons. The word „cannons‟ is used to show that they will probably die
because cannons are dangerous and can kill you. So it shows clearly the element of danger”.
This, despite the apparent elaboration, remains a basic Band 2 explicit meaning and is not an
example of what is meant by “saying a lot about a little”.
It is very encouraging to see that many students have been taught to use short, precise quotations
(details) upon which they then offer a comment of the „this implies‟ variety. The mark scheme
rewards this skill quantitatively so that a response which offers three details each with a valid
comment moves easily into Band 4 and possibly Band 5. This is a very welcome trend in AO1.
3 of 9
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE – 47102F – JUNE 2013
AO2
This is the assessment objective in which the greatest overall improvement is evident. The use of
acronyms has decreased significantly and a large number of candidates have clearly been taught
to identify a technique used in a poem and immediately exemplify it : “In Out of the Blue, Armitage
uses alliteration in the first stanza- “burning building”. This instantly achieves a mark in Band 3 of
strand 3 and, more importantly, sets the candidate off on the path of writing an answer which
reflects what the poet is doing as well as what the poem means. However, any number of
additional comments such as this will not move the candidate on to Band 4, which requires
„identification of an intended effect‟. Students need to be taught to follow such comments with
„which suggests/emphasises/creates/implies…‟. A further qualification though, relates to generic
comments such as „makes the reader read on/makes the reader feel sorry‟ which are simple
responses rather than intended effects.
Sadly, with the increased focus on „writers‟ use of language/structure/form‟ has come a plethora of
comments about structure which are at best weak and at worst completely ridiculous, and these
relate to the deeply unhelpful fashion for „turning the poem on its side‟. This approach to structure
leads candidates to making comments such as “Quickdraw is written in the shape of a gun, In
Paris With You looks like the Eiffel Tower, Out of the Blue is written in a long column which is the
shape of the Twin Towers, Harmonium looks like the keys of a keyboard; the two stanzas of Futility
are like two guns” etc. One candidate even extended this technique to the unseen poem, which
was deemed to be shaped like a flowerpot, although it is difficult to see what relevance this would
have to the context of the “Daily London Recipe” (one hesitates to think about flour). Despite the
above stipulation that there is no right answer, the Principal Examiner has yet to be convinced that
a poet‟s main motivation lies in constructing their work in a shape which requires rotation of the
page. Wherever these ideas come from, they should be returned there and dismissed: they will
not gain candidates marks for AO2 in this unit.
It is worth reminding teachers that this strand of the mark scheme is worded „writers‟ choices of
language and/or structure and/or form‟ indicating that it is not essential to write about structure in
order to attain marks on AO2 and lower ability candidates might benefit from concentrating more
on language and literary techniques. However, some suggestions as to how structure might be
more usefully approached will follow.
A further plea to teachers is to discourage their students from overuse of particular terms such as
„connotation (or worse „connotes‟) and „lexical/semantic field‟. These are perfectly valid technical
terms, of course, but an answer which concentrates overwhelmingly or exclusively on these is
narrow and self-limiting. Finally, candidates really need to know the difference between „images‟
which can be created by any type of descriptive or evocative words, and „imagery‟ which is a
collective noun for three particular literary devices.
AO3
Successive reports have commented on the relative weakness of comparison in this unit and this
series sadly shows very little change. Examiners once again overwhelmingly report on their
dismay at seeing Band 4 answers on each of the two poems in Section A answers, but failure to
gain equivalent marks on AO3. A large number of candidates write enthusiastically about at least
one of the poems, quite often about both, and then remember at the last moment the need to
compare and offer a hasty comment which is often a simple link, placing the answer in Band 2 for
this AO. The result is an answer which scores in Band 3 and is therefore unlikely to achieve a
Grade C. Teachers are reminded that comparison carries 1/3 of the marks in Section A.
4 of 9
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE – 47102F – JUNE 2013
„Compare‟ appears as the key word in every question, signalling the importance of AO3 which
must be given due regard.
Detailed guidance on how to prepare students to approach comparison is available in previous
reports and does not need to be revisited here. However, the following bullet points may be useful
reminders:

Band 3 requires “ some comments comparing” i.e. plural, so students must be taught to
make at least two such comments.
 Comments are beyond simple links. An answer which gives several simple links will
remain in Band 2.
 Band 4 requires “structured comparison” which can be attained in two ways:
1. A number of (3 or more) comparative comments sprinkled through the answer. This could
take the form of an opening paragraph with a comparative comment; a linking paragraph
with a comparative comment when moving on to the second poem and a summative
paragraph containing a third comparative comment;
2. OR: an entire paragraph containing several different points of comparison such as:
“The poets show the dangers in the way they write by in both poems suggesting good
things in a bad environment, for example, in At the Border, there are a lot of positive
thoughts in a sad and tense environment. In Extract from Out of the Blue, the idea of hope
in a kind of environment that is in ruins but overall both poems are different, one with a
happy ending and one which results in ending with a cliff hanger”.




These comments are not particularly but they are typical of F tier responses and represent
a genuine attempt on the part of the candidate to compare the poems strong (and in fact „At
the Border‟ was a potentially poor choice of text for comparison). If students could be
taught to open their answer with this type of paragraph, performance on AO3 would be
much improved.
The plural comments must be different from each other. All too often, candidates make
one valid comparative comment and then repeat it in various ways: this will not achieve
Band 3 or 4.
The choice of poem to compare is vital. There is clear evidence of students coming into the
examination determined to write about a particular poem regardless of the question. This
can make it extremely difficult to identify meaningful points of comparison and is not the
way to success. For example, in Q8, which required candidates to write about “feelings of
affection”, „Sister Maude‟ was not a productive choice. Another phenomenon seems to be
comparing the two named poems in the two questions on a cluster, or choosing the second
poem on the basis of its proximity in the anthology, to the named poem, neither of which is
a helpful approach.
The indiscriminate use of comparative connectives will not deceive examiners into
rewarding comparison: it is the comments which earn the marks.
When students make a comment on technique “Both poems use metaphors”, immediate
exemplification by citing a metaphor from each poem gains 3.6. Repeating this with a
further comparison of, say, rhetorical questions, is likely to attain 4.6.
In summary then, approaching the study of the cluster in a way which forces students to always
consider links, points of similarity and difference between texts is strongly recommended.
5 of 9
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE – 47102F – JUNE 2013
SECTION A
Question 1 proved somewhat problematic owing to the directive to „compare how poets use
language and structure‟ in the „Ruined Maid‟. Responses tended to be somewhat superficial and
the opportunity to discuss the use of dialogue and contemporary or regional dialect was rarely
taken. Few candidates could say anything beyond „Melia‟ being “posh” or recognise the use of
irony or the teasing voice and tone. It is perhaps unsurprising in this relatively promiscuous age
that there was very little understanding of the concept of “ruined”, but underlines the need for
students to have some contextual background to the poems. Comparisons with „My Last Duchess‟
in terms of the speaker‟s voice or „Medusa‟ in an interpretation of a ruined woman worked quite
well. One examiner reported seeing some quite sophisticated answers using „Case History‟ (both
characters undergoing a fundamental change in their situation but in opposite directions) or „Les
Grands Seigneurs‟ – relationships with men and the contrasting impact on their situations and
scope to explore shifts in power and perceptions of women in society – very impressive work here.
For question 2, „The Hunchback in the Park‟ was a more popular choice in Character & Voice,
with candidates responding well to the invitation to write about their feelings for this character,
many also taking the opportunity to express anger and disgust with the boys‟ behaviour, which
bodes well for society! However, a cautionary note here is that questions which invite expressions
of feeling still expect those feelings to be attributable to the text with responses rooted in the
poems: sometimes candidates were side-tracked into a general examination of the ills of society.
The most effective comparisons came with „The Clown Punk‟, „Give‟ and, to a lesser extent, „Horse
Whisperer‟, concentrating on the treatment of outsiders. Some interesting comments blamed the
character in „Give‟ for his own apparently homeless circumstances and identified a significant
difference between the hunchback and the clown punk in that the latter had chosen his situation.
One school in particular produced beautiful responses on „Hunchback‟ containing perceptive
comments on the religious imagery of the woman fashioned from his bones, which were a joy to
read.
For question 3, Place continues to be the least popular cluster. Those who chose this question
showed a reasonable understanding of „Price We Pay For The Sun‟ but on a fairly superficial level.
There was good understanding of the „sleeping volcanoes‟ simile and the feelings of the family
about the mother‟s cancer, but few could identify the underlying themes of the general
dangers/hardships behind the island‟s scenic beauty/tourist image. Comparison was not well done
here. The most obvious choice would have been „Neighbours‟ but this appears to be a text
eschewed by F tier teachers and there were missed opportunities to discuss the dangers in wind
and thunderstorms. „Cold Knap Lake‟ was the most popular selection, possibly owing to its
location in the anthology, and a few candidates endeavoured to draw links with „London‟, seeing it
as another dangerous place.
Question 4 was the preferred choice in Place and the majority of candidates understood the
concept of threat in „Below the Green Corrie‟, sometimes seeing the extended metaphor of the
bandits, but were unable to go beyond this to identify the life-enhancing moment of joy and
wonder. Comparisons were most often made to „Spellbound‟ and some good work was seen on
the treatment of darkness in both poems. It was pleasing to note that several candidates were
able to offer structured or even sustained comparisons on these texts while others commented well
on imagery and tone using „Spellbound‟ or „Storm in the Black Forest‟.
A quarter of candidates chose question 5 and many of these wrote well on „Extract‟ from „Out of
the Blue‟, some being able to trace the changes in the victim‟s outlook. A few responses did little
more than offer an extended background to the 9/11 conflict or made fundamental
6 of 9
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE – 47102F – JUNE 2013
misinterpretations such as the notion that the victim had already jumped and making mistaken
reference to the “you” of the opening line as being God. Most responses concentrated on the
victim‟s plight and virtually no-one was able to consider the role of the watching audience and the
deeper connotations of this concept of voyeurism. A wide range of comparative texts was
selected, the most productive being „Charge of the Light Brigade‟ which worked well on the basis of
victims of circumstance but offering many contrasts – civilians/soldiers; powerlessness/choice;
different types of warfare; use of repetition but for different reasons etc. „Belfast Confetti‟ was also
popular, though there was limited understanding of the extended metaphor of punctuation and
some erroneous ideas about the rhetorical questions at the end of the poem. „The Right Word‟
generated some interesting thematic comparisons based on terrorism. Less successful was „Flag‟:
it takes an able candidate to make really focused comments on the dangers represented by the
blind patriotism which is the theme of „Flag‟ and too often, the main link was that of the literal flag
with “flagging” or the waving of the white shirt equating to a flag. It is difficult to see how far such
comparisons could go.
Question 6 was attempted by far fewer candidates and frequently compared with „Falling Leaves‟,
„Mametz Wood‟ or the perennially popular „Charge of the Light Brigade‟. In drawing the basis for
comparison with a soldier who did not choose to have his life ended, it was extremely gratifying to
see a developing understanding of the difficult „Come On, Come Back‟ as the second text here.
One candidate summarised thus: “It‟s about the effect war can have on some people leaving them
alone and looking for comfort in suicide”; going on to comment that “seizing her in an icy-amorous
embrace could suggest that as before she felt alone, now the water is her protective lover and the
war isn‟t able to hurt her any more as now she is protected by the water.” It is heart-warming to
see F tier candidates wrestling so impressively with challenging texts and teachers are to be
congratulated for these high expectations of their students.
With regards to the named poem here, there were varying levels of response. Candidates
generally understood the explicit feelings of loss and grief and often wrote well about the
personification of the sun, although a number failed to realise that the soldier was dead. However,
few were able to grasp the significance of the title or the underlying themes of pointlessness or the
questioning undertaken by the poet.
Question 7 was the second most popular question on the paper and required examination of
unhappy experiences. Many candidates demonstrated engagement with and understanding of
„Quickdraw‟ and were able to explain the extended metaphor of the Wild West gunfight with varying
degrees of success. Few, however, were able to grapple with the more subtle aspects of
communication issues in relationships and some candidates struggled with the persona. The
ambiguous ending produced a variety of interpretations and was often the basis for fruitful
comparisons with the unsatisfactory or incomplete resolution in „Manhunt‟ or „Nettles‟, both poems
also offering further opportunities to compare the use of military imagery. The most popular
second text, however, was „In Paris With You‟ where issues of hurt/wounding, disgruntled lovers
and fractured/damaged relationships were explored with some success, one senior examiner
commenting that many of the responses contained fresh and surprisingly mature comments on
relationships. „The Farmer‟s Bride‟ shares many similar aspects but was employed much less
frequently.
As has previously been alluded to, the difficulty with question 8 was that a number of candidates
either failed to understand what was meant by „feelings of affection‟ or chose to ignore it and wrote
about any feelings at all. When a question is written with a specific focus, its intention is to assist
foundation candidates by directing them to fewer choices of second text. Attempting to compare
„Sister Maude‟ really only allowed candidates to say this was different to „Praise Song for My
7 of 9
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE – 47102F – JUNE 2013
Mother‟ because it did not contain any affection and thus was inevitably self-limiting. A few better
answers were able to comment on feelings of affection for the parents but even here, there was
little to say.
„Brothers‟ and „Farmer‟s Bride‟ were also unproductive, while „Born Yesterday‟ was rarely well
understood. Much more successful choices were „Manhunt‟ and „Nettles‟ (protection and love),
„Hour‟ (imagery and love) and some excellent answers were seen comparing parent/child
relationships in „Harmonium‟.
SECTION B
In general, impressive progress has been made in performance on the unseen poem: many
candidates are now writing at length, covering both parts of the question well and showing
confidence in attempting a variety of individual interpretations. Indeed, several candidates
achieved full marks on this question. „Daily London Recipe‟ offered the opportunity for a wide
range of ideas and most candidates were at least able to identify that the poet was presenting
London as busy, boring, cramped and crowded. Equally, most were able to recognise the use of
the extended metaphor of the recipe. Better candidates went on to link the recipe format to the
idea of a routine, the outcome of repeating the same steps producing identical results and
commenting on the stereotypical elements of the average London worker‟s day. Some impressive
work was seen when candidates took these ideas even further, exploring the notion of people as
ingredients in a robotic, programmed, Orwellian Big Brother society controlled by governments.
Inevitably, there were also those who offered very explicit responses seeing the poem as a
description of a bus driver‟s day or an indictment of a poor London bus service and the vast
majority were unable to engage with the idiomatic “hot under the collar”. One senior examiner
commented „it was deemed to be about bus drivers, chefs, bricklayers and people so tired that they
went to bed in their overalls or pinstriped suits. „Tit Bits‟ became a porn magazine and led to
sexual activity to relieve the daily boredom.‟ One candidate tried in vain to see some great
significance in asterisks and „funny writing‟! While another wrote that “they were very keen to do
things right because they looked after their standards and bits”.
It is, of course, impossible to legislate for candidates‟ inability to recognise certain terminology or to
gloss everything which may not be fully understood. The important point to recognise here is that
failure to understand some of these words or phrases did not, and need not, prevent candidates
from producing good answers: they will never be expected to say everything there is to say about
an unseen text, particularly given the time constraints here – and teachers would do well to
reassure their students not to panic if there is something they don‟t understand, but just to
comment on what they do understand.
The “pin-stripe suit” generated some amusing interpretations – pyjamas or prison outfits being the
most popular, although one candidate felt this was an overall which women wore! Very few
recognised the universality implied by the almost „throw-away‟ last line and this leads into an
important point about endings, which has already been referred to in the comments on Q7. One
senior examiner pointed out „where candidates paid particular attention to the ending (and the title)
as keys to the meaning, this always paid off, resulting in clearer, fuller understanding and avoiding
sweeping judgements or total misreadings. It is worth pointing out to students that the force of the
ending is frequently the key to unlocking the whole tone/meaning of a poem.‟
AO2 was quite well handled in terms of the recipe idea and the imperative
verbs/commands/instructions were quite widely noted. This is a situation where the use of
“lexical/semantic field” could have been used profitably by selecting and listing the cooking
8 of 9
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE ENGLISH LITERATURE – 47102F – JUNE 2013
terminology, this act in itself likely to allow the candidate to reach a conclusion about what the
writer was trying to do here.
Returning to structure, as promised earlier in the report, many candidates did themselves a
disservice on the unseen poem by attempting to make fairly meaningless comments on line
lengths and enjambment (cf enjamblement, engenrement). This poem does contain some good
examples of enjambment but no-one was able to comment on what this placement meant in terms
of representing the crowding of the buses. Comments on the effects of enjambment remain at the
level of “it makes it flow/it stops it from flowing/it speeds the poem up/it slows the poem down” etc.
which are almost universally inaccurate. Students could usefully be taught about this technique by
being presented with a poem which has been written out as a prose text then asked to compare
this with the poem itself and try to decide why such structural decisions have been taken. Whilst
not wishing to introduce yet another technical term which generally defeats foundation tier
students, the use of caesura is often a much more fruitful area for exploration.
Overall then, there is much to savour in the work offered by foundation candidates this series.
There is clear evidence of students being released to engage with poems on their own terms and a
growing assurance in expressing their own ideas. Awareness of writers and the way they are
using words and techniques is another area which is steadily improving and there is particularly
impressive progress in candidates‟ ability to select short, appropriate quotations and comment on
them. If comparison can be addressed in the same way so that all three assessment objectives
receive similar attention, further success in this unit can be expected and the Principal Examiner
looks forward to fewer and fewer candidates metaphorically shooting themselves in both feet .
The major cause for celebration however, is in the very evident increase in enjoyment of poetry
seen in a large number of responses, which is entirely due to the efforts of English Literature
teachers, who are to be soundly congratulated for keeping poetry alive and meaningful for even the
least able English students.
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades
Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics
page of the AQA Website.
Converting Marks into UMS marks
Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below.
UMS conversion calculator
9 of 9