gcse examiners' reports - Create a Paper - CBAC

© WJEC CBAC Ltd.

GCSE EXAMINERS' REPORTS

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND ENGLISH LITERATURE JANUARY 2014

© WJEC CBAC Ltd.

Grade Boundaries Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at: https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en Online results analysis WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer at the centre.

https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en

1 © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE

General Certificate of Secondary Education

January 2014

Chair of Examiners: Mr. B.J.D. Childs

Chief Examiner: Dr. K.C. Elliott

Principal Examiner: Mr. E. Snell

FOUNDATION TIER

Although these papers were the first in this new specification, they marked a return to what will have been a familiar pattern to many centres, each paper comprising of a reading and a writing element. Because the papers included both reading and planning time, this should have allowed candidates opportunities to approach the examination methodically and to organise their material carefully. Most candidates seemed to have done this and there were few incomplete papers in Unit 1, although examiners reported too many brief writing responses in Unit 2. Although reading and planning time reduces the pressure on candidates to some extent, time management remains an important part of examination preparation.

Unit 1

Section A

This section of the paper asked candidates to read and respond to an unseen passage, in this instance concerning the central character, Chrissie, who, through a series of coincidences, witnesses a row between her parents that ultimately leads to a family breakdown. The narrative was quite fast-paced but concluded with Chrissie reflecting on the coincidences that had led her to witness the row between her parents in the first place and wondering whether different circumstances might have brought about a more positive outcome for her parents. Because reading time allowed a more considered approach to the text, good candidates were able to confidently probe the circumstances of the events and the impact of these on the central character and explore the ways in which the writer built and developed the narrative.

A1

This question asked the candidates to look at lines 1-35 and explain the events that led to Chrissie seeing what was going on in her house. Candidates who tracked carefully through the text had lots of relevant detail to inform their responses but the best saw the connections and the coincidences to the events and were able to thread points of relevance together convincingly. Weaker readers sometimes approached this question as though it could be answered simply and briefly in a series of bullet points. This approach severely limited opportunities to see the way the narrative unfolded and the links between the events were rarely identified. I have frequently warned against this approach because it rarely demonstrates close reading and often misses key elements of the narrative. For example, although the passage begins with Chrissie explaining why her brothers would have liked to have Chrissie’s bedroom, it was only the link to the later events that made Chrissie wish they had been given it. Candidates who simply noted the brothers wanted her room gained no reward, while more careful readers saw the connection with the later events and were rewarded. Most candidates saw some of the more obvious

2 © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

points in the narrative, for example, that Chrissie unusually had caught the bus home on that particular Saturday. However, more careful readers noted that this was the first in a series of unusual circumstances that led to her unwittingly witnessing the row between her parents. The question invited candidates to ‘explain the events’ rather than simply list or bullet point them and better candidates were able to show how the events began to link and led to her seeing the argument that was going on in her bedroom.

From getting on the bus, circumstances conspired in a way that led to Chrissie being on the top deck of the bus and making the decision to stay on it so that she could see what was going on in her room. Candidates were rewarded for carefully tracking the text and explaining why she went to the top deck, why she was able to see her house and then why she decided not to get off at what would have been the most appropriate bus stop. In the narrative Chrissie explains that it was by chance that she sat on a seat that allowed her to see the houses on her side of the road, but having done that, she noticed her bedroom light was on. This prompted her decision to stay on the bus, as she thought it would be her brothers “mucking about” in her room. Good candidates often made the connection back to the opening paragraph at this point, earning some reward where the links to this were made. These candidates also noted the regret Chrissie feels at each decision she makes. Many gained some reward for explaining her reasons for staying on the bus: she wanted to give her brothers a shock if they saw her watching them from the bus; she also stayed on because she had never been past her house on a bus before. Instead of giving her brothers a surprise, she is surprised herself when the bus draws level with the house and she sees her parents in her room. Because the bus is in heavy traffic and doesn’t move on, she is able to see that her parents, rather than talking to each other, are actually rowing. Chrissie reflects that the reason her mother had probably gone into her room in the first place was because Chrissie had failed to make her bed that morning because of the rush to go Christmas shopping. The best responses showed how the series of events and circumstances had led to Chrissie witnessing the row but also saw that at each point in the narrative Chrissie herself had reflected on how things might have been different.

This was a question that required careful reading and tracking to show how the sequence of events led to her seeing the parents arguing and the best responses showed the ability to select from the text appropriately and comment sensibly on the closely-woven details.

A2

This question invited candidates to select relevant details from the text to show what happened from the point where Chrissie could see the argument develop from a verbal to a more physical argument up to where the whole family are made aware of the violent outcome, but also to explore how the writer builds the tension in this part of the narrative.

Most candidates sensibly started by looking at the section of text where Chrissie is watching the events in her bedroom unfold from her seat on the bus (lines 36-44). It is clear that the parents are arguing but this appears to be escalating into a more violent confrontation. Many candidates selected appropriate details to show this, some looking first at the behaviour of Chrissie’s father and then her mother. For example, they noted how her father seemed to be ‘yelling’ and how ‘his fists were clenched’ as evidence of the rising tension. In response, Chrissie’s mother ‘suddenly threw the duvet down’ and good candidates commented on how this seemed to signal a further escalation of the argument. As the couple turn to face each other, readers are given snapshots of the scene Chrissie sees being played out as her Dad shouts and her mother goes ‘towards him with her arm up’. Careful readers, alert to the writer’s craft, went on to explain that the tension here is increased because, as the bus moves on, we don’t actually see any physical attack but we wonder what has happened.

3 © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

As Chrissie gets off the bus, her fears and anxieties are shown by her running back to her house, her bags banging against her legs, and when she reaches her house, by banging on the glass panel of the door. The door is opened by Chrissie’s brother who appears unaware of the drama Chrissie has seen being played out, and candidates were rewarded for their sensible comments on the contrast here between Chrissie’s anxiety and her brother’s calm response to her banging on the door. Careful readers noticed the way Chrissie slams the door ‘so it could be heard upstairs’ to attract attention and almost all readers included in their responses the evidence of how the argument had ended, when Chrissie’s mother comes into the kitchen with ‘a red mark across one side of her face, a really hard mark; it had an edge to it’. Most candidates attempted to deal with her mother’s explanation of the mark on her face but better responses not only tracked the narrative at this point but commented on how the tension had been built by exploring Chrissie’s thoughts as well as her reaction to her mother’s explanation. Two key elements in the build-up of tension here are the way Chrissie then ‘blurts out’ the truth about what has happened and then how Jan Mark describes the scene as her father and other brother come into the room: ‘we all stood looking at each other and wondering how to pretend nothing was happening’. Good candidates were able to comment on this, in some cases writing about the awkwardness they felt as a reader viewing the situation, whilst weaker candidates were content to merely note it.

The question was framed in such a way as to allow those who were prepared and able to demonstrate the ability to track the text carefully and select appropriate details to earn a creditable mark, but the highest marks were reserved for those who could also explore the craft of the writer and her ability to make readers feel the tension of the characters and situation. There was plenty of material to select from and examiners reported that there were many good examples of responses that showed a sensitive engagement with the text. Some candidates were overly concerned in this question with feature-spotting as a way of responding to “How does the writer...” and were desperate to find examples of repetition, alliteration or short sentences but in truth this often led them into blind alleys and those who were prepared to carefully consider the way the drama played out and how the characters responded were better placed to gain high marks.

A3

This final question was perhaps the most demanding of all as it required candidates to consider Chrissie’s thoughts and feelings as she finds herself making an involuntary visit back to her old street but also to offer a personal reaction to the way the story ends.

This part of the narrative required careful reading; whilst not a great deal actually happens, we are taken into Chrissie’s reflections about recent events and her reactions to finding herself back in Iffley Road. Weaker readers found it difficult to select what was appropriate to the question and sometimes responded by re-telling the story in these lines and many failed to offer a response about how they viewed the ending.

The passage begins with Chrissie reflecting on the family Christmas and how everyone had tried to pretend for a while that all was well. Her painful realisation that ‘by New Year it wasn’t any good’ and the stark news that her Dad had left home on New Year’s Eve sets the tone for what follows, as it is clear there has been significant family upheaval, with Dad moving to Banbury and the house on Iffley Road being sold. Many candidates offered a sensible view of Chrissie’s thoughts and feelings in this opening paragraph before going on to explore her reactions to finding herself back in Iffley Road.

To begin with, Chrissie had ‘almost forgotten’ how the original incident occurred and it was only the chance bus ride that brought all the events crashing back on her. She reflects that all of the pain of her earlier journey came back because she wasn’t paying attention to what bus she was on, and she wishes she had remembered to state where she wanted to go, as

4 © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

then she would have been told she was on the wrong bus. We learn she had avoided returning to her old road and house since the family breakup but when she saw where the bus was going she tells us ‘I couldn’t move’. She is clearly upset by her familiar surroundings but is glad to be sitting downstairs on the bus, which meant she could not see into her bedroom, the scene of such painful memories. Because the bus is moving quickly she is relieved not to have long to look at her old house, although she notices some of the changes that had taken place. She blames herself for not acting more quickly, saying ‘I should have got off as soon as I realised what road we were on’. However, the painful memories cannot be erased and the passage concludes with Chrissie thinking that had she got off earlier all the memories she had of her parents arguing and fighting might not have surfaced again so quickly.

The response to the question required not just a careful reading of the text but a firm grip on the question, and some responses lost focus or were brief and showed only limited selection of appropriate detail. Where responses were good, they tracked the important details from the passage and commented sensibly. The best ones also reacted sensitively to the text, offering valid personal responses that ranged from sympathy for Chrissie to commenting that the story left them feeling rather uncomfortable as there was no neat outcome to Chrissie’s circumstances. Some felt cheated by the ending, demanding to know what happened to her and her family, and this too was a valid reaction. Other reactions to the ending included comments on the structure of the story, one candidate writing about the way that the tale began and ended with a bus journey but wherever candidates could justify a valid viewpoint they were rewarded.

Section B

Section B is common to candidates on both tiers and the key messages in the higher tier report apply equally to candidates who took the Foundation Tier examination.

Marking narrative writing has always been pleasurable and the return to it in this examination was most welcome. The choices offered gave candidates the opportunity to write first or third person narratives and there was much to enjoy. I would echo the words of caution about ‘prepared essays’ offered in the higher tier report. Some examiners noted a number of responses that strained to fit the titles offered – and some that had almost no connection at all with the title. These rarely impressed examiners. That said, there were few candidates who did not try hard and many of the responses were significantly longer than the suggested length of 400-500 words. However, for too many candidates on the tier, writing with accuracy, rather than at length, was an issue.

Because the weighting for accuracy has increased, it was perhaps inevitable that some Foundation Tier candidates would struggle, and so it proved. Inaccuracies in basic spelling, sentence construction and punctuation often limited the overall mark of lively and engaging narratives and whilst weaknesses are not easily overcome, candidates need to understand that if they are to be successful basic accuracy is necessary.

(a) Write a story which ends: … and that wiped the smile off her face.

As with higher tier responses, the choice of a narrative with a specified ending require some planning to avoid an awkward collision of plot and conclusion in the final sentence. There were some lively stories and anecdotes seen but on occasions the final sentence abruptly or awkwardly impacted on what had gone before and some candidates needed to plan their resolution to their tales a little more carefully. The best pieces however, were engaging, often with a strong moral overtone; these inevitably involved the villain of the piece getting their just desserts, leaving the reader feeling satisfied at the outcome.

5 © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

(b) The Choice.

This title offered a first or third person narrative and there was a very wide range of stories as a result, ranging from personal anecdotes where a moral dilemma was central to ‘the choice’ to more action-packed yarns set in conflict zones. At times, weaker candidates slipped into a ‘string of events’ narrative but stronger responses built some convincing tales where setting and character development sat neatly alongside the events in the story.

(c) Write about a time when you were at a children’s party.

Candidates wrote with lively engagement in their descriptions of children’s parties. Narratives ranged from the reluctant involvement of a teenager forced to participate in a younger sibling’s party to those where the narrator was as excited and engaged in the proceedings as the birthday boy or girl. Many captured the scenes very neatly indeed and some of the detail and characters in the narratives suggested they were drawn from real events and people. This was often the most successful of the five choices and produced some very good responses.

(d) Write a story which begins: I didn’t know if I had the courage to do this …

Although similar in many ways to the above option, some of the narratives here lacked credibility, perhaps because writers viewed ‘courage’ in a rather narrow way. However, the more successful pieces showed the ability to structure a tale that dealt with a key incident, whether that was making the decision to attack the enemy in a war zone or after great deliberation, deciding to ride the world’s biggest rollercoaster. As with all successful narratives, an eye for detail, capturing the feelings of the key characters and avoiding a string of events were features of the best responses.

(e) Making a Difference.

This option seemed to be the choice of a relatively small number of candidates and although some managed to create quite effective narratives from the title, others offered a more reflective response, often about someone they knew who had made a difference. At times this worked quite well, although on other occasions the result was a rather awkward mixture of narrative and reflection, with neither element managed terribly well.

Unit 2 Section A The material focused on teenagers helping with household chores, one of the texts being a report that suggested more teenagers than might have been imagined were willing to share the daily chores, the other being a report of a mother in Canada who became so frustrated by her daughters’ unwillingness to help around the house that she went on strike to make them understand that everyone in the house had a responsibility to help keep it clean and tidy. The newspaper article in particular seemed to strike a chord with candidates, many of whom could not resist offering their own viewpoint or confessing that they were like the girls in the article. The questions followed a fairly familiar pattern and with the changes in the structure and timings, most candidates should not have struggled to complete both reading and writing sections of the paper.

6 © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

A1 This first question tested the familiar skills of location and selection. The first part of the question asked candidates to list five reasons from the internet report why teenagers said they were prepared to help out with housework. A tiny number of candidates looked at the wrong text and tangled themselves in knots trying to find answers but most found the task manageable. It did require some fairly careful selection of detail but most were able to score quite highly. In the second paragraph the report quotes one girl who explained it was only fair for teenagers to help out because “if both parents work, they are too tired to do it every day”. Others noted that teenagers said they saw it as a way of doing “something in return for their upbringing”; others explained this same point by quoting the author of the report: “children feel that household chores are a way of paying parents back for looking after them. Lots of candidates saw that they could use the actual quotations of teenagers cited in the report; one example of this was the boy who explained that teenagers should help “because they are not paying for anything like food or electricity”. It was possible to accumulate some marks from the same paragraph but to gain full marks candidates needed to range more widely. Lots of candidates were able to explain that teenagers recognised that they would need to do the chores as an adult, so this was good preparation for the future, and in another part of the text the point made by one teenager about it being fair for both sexes to contribute to and share household chores was recognised by many as being a valid and important reason. Another point that seemed to be recognised by many candidates was that they had actually contributed to the mess and therefore it was only fair that they cleared it up. The next part of the question asked candidates to list five tasks that teenagers might have been expected to do in the past and again, this provided a reasonably easy test of location and selection, with many candidates gaining full marks. Weaker candidates sometimes struggled to locate the correct details or ignored the instruction to list five tasks, contenting themselves with just two or three, but for those determined to gain good marks, it was simply a case of combing the text for the appropriate details. Most candidates were able to find some of the relevant information in the third paragraph, which explained that between the 1930s and 1970s children were expected to plan and prepare meals, and were made responsible for nursing sick family members. Perhaps because of its novelty to twenty-first century teenagers, most candidates seemed amused by past expectations that even a four year old child would be taught to build a fire and then light it. From other sections of the text, candidates were able to select tasks such as decorating, keeping household accounts and looking after younger members of the family to help them gain marks. Many candidates gain full or nearly full marks on this first question although there were still too many that muddled up details or lost a focus on exactly what the question demanded. A2 The next question switched the focus to the newspaper article about Jessica Stilwell, the Canadian mother of three who decided to go on strike, leaving her house to become ‘a chaotic pigsty’ over six days. The question invited candidates to explore how the writer had tried to make the story of the strike interesting. The bullet points that went with the question offered candidates some clear areas of focus for their responses. A sensible way to approach this question was for candidates to consider why the story might be interesting and then look at details in the article that would add to the readers’ interest. There was plenty of material to explore but perhaps the obvious starting point was that this mother was unusual in actually going on strike. Some candidates began by saying their own mothers had often threatened the same course of action but it was unusual for anyone to carry out the threat. In doing so, and in deciding to chronicle the

7 © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

events and post them as a blog on the internet to give a world-wide readership, Jessica Stilwell became a global ‘sensation’ that ‘struck a chord with parents’ across the world. Some candidates explored the impact of this and then sensibly looked at the background to her strike and how it developed. Good candidates were aware that the ‘strike’ was the result of her frustration with her children but was carried out with good humour as well as determination and many commented on her character and that she thought it ‘would be funny to write about’. Some were keen to explain that her strike taught her children a valuable lesson that the whole family had a responsibility to work together and help each other.

Once candidates had explored the background and build up to her decision to go on strike, most then began to document some of the details of the strike they found interesting and here the responses often became a mixture of selections of details of the developing chaos along with some focus on the words and phrases that emphasised it. Weaker candidates often struggled to focus on the telling details of the strike or found it difficult to do very much more than ‘spot’ details, but stronger candidates were able to comment on how the details contributed to the increasing household disaster. Most were able to at least select some relevant details such as the takeaway food that ‘sets like superglue’ or the way meals had to be eaten on paper plates by the third day because there were no clean plates available. Similarly, dirty lunchboxes could no longer be used and instead the family resorted to using ‘poo bags’ bought for clearing up after the dog. However, it was where candidates were prepared to ‘take the extra step’ of exploring why or how the details added to the interest of the article where the higher marks were awarded. They were often interested in the effect the strike had on the children, particularly as the strike wore on, giving examples of the way they complained but did nothing about clearing the mess.

Some candidates were able to make sensible comments about the way the newspaper article gave details of the day by day blog or explored the impact on them as readers when they read about the ‘chaotic pigsty’ or the dog licking the dishes in the dishwasher.

The article included three photographs of the way the kitchen looked during Jessica Stilwell’s strike and whilst most made a passing reference to the mess, few explored the photographs in very much detail; however, those who did often saw how the photographs reflected the details of her blog and giving just a few details of what was in the photographs resulted in some reward. As the strike drew to its conclusion, good candidates focused on the way the children learnt their lesson the hard way and saw that Stilwell had acted as she did for the right reasons.

The four bullet points offered a way of approaching the question and some candidates tried to work their way through each bullet point in turn, whilst others tracked through the text noting interesting details as they went. Both approaches, when done carefully, worked equally well, but weaker readers sometimes struggled to select appropriate details or to say anything about the details they had selected. Others tried to approach the text by trying to spot specific features of the writing they claimed were interesting, but this was rarely a productive route, and for these candidates using the bullet points to structure their response would have supported their efforts more successfully. However, there were many good responses to the question and the article had clearly engaged lots of candidates, some of whom confessed to realising they were rather like the children in the article.

A3

The final question on this paper asked candidates to use both texts to collate and compare information, first on the household jobs seen as suitable for teenagers nowadays and then to look at the reasons given in the two texts for children not doing household jobs. An important instruction, to make it clear which from texts the information had been drawn,

8 © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

should have helped candidates to organise their material but far too many ignored this instruction and incurred a one-mark penalty on each section. This kind of task has always been a challenging one for candidates on this tier but those who approached the task carefully and methodically gained good marks, whilst others struggled to organise their answers. First of all, it was important for candidates to be clear about exactly what information was required and some clearly took too little time in checking the wording of the question and often wrote at length about the wrong information. It was also important to organise the material from the texts in a sensible way, and probably the easiest way of doing this was to look at one text at a time, select the relevant details to include in the answer and then move on to the second text to repeat the process. Where candidates took this methodical approach they often gained good marks.

Many began by looking at the internet report and here, setting the table for meals, washing up and being involved in cleaning the house were all noted in the report as being suitable jobs. By then moving across to the newspaper article, good candidates found that Jessica Stilwell expected her children to keep their own belongings tidy, clear their breakfast and dinner dishes and put them in the dishwasher and they were also expected to clean their own lunch boxes. Some candidates were able to gain the full five marks for this part of the question in just two or three sentences, but too many wrote long responses that drifted off the question. Some returned to their first answer on the paper, explaining why teenagers did household chores, others wrote about the jobs teenagers did in the past and this cost them time but gained them no marks; perhaps one of the messages about this final question is that it is imperative that candidates are absolutely sure what information they are looking for before they begin their search.

The second part of the question asked candidates to find from each text the reasons given for children not doing household tasks. Where candidates were clear about what was asked for and employed a methodical approach it was again possible to score full marks in just two or three sentences. In the internet report one boy had explained that he should not be expected to do jobs at home because he was given homework and expected to study every night. He went on to offer another reason, that this would certainly take all of his time up, whilst other teenagers had argued that childhood was ‘a period to be enjoyed and should not be interrupted with household responsibilities’. In looking at the newspaper article, many candidates quoted the daughter who had told her mother, ‘Kids have parents for a reason: to clean up after them’, though more careful readers also saw that the mother had quoted what her daughters kept telling her as a reason for not doing chores: ‘I was just too busy’. Whilst there were examples of candidates who gained full or nearly full marks quite easily, there were also too many candidates who either misread the question, failed to identify the specific text in their responses or simply got tangled up in answers that were not focused sufficiently well on the question.

Section B

This task offered almost all candidates the chance to write about something they had a genuine interest in, whether it was music, fashion or movies and the wording of the task: ‘My kind of...’ meant they could indulge themselves writing about their own preferences, whilst keeping in mind they were writing for a teenage magazine. The best pieces were lively, engaging and captured the writer’s enthusiasm for his/her subject. The instruction was to write about 300-400 words and this gave candidates the opportunity to range quite widely or to explore in some detail a particular aspect of their subject. In the best pieces, I have no doubt examiners learned something of the music, fashion or movie world they had not encountered before and were given insights into what made the writers feel moved or inspired by their choices. These pieces kept their audiences firmly in mind and there were some neat asides or anecdotes that added to the overall quality of the work. Often, good responses were structured neatly, offering four or five areas of discussion, each

9 © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

given a paragraph or section and introduced with a topic sentence, the rest of the paragraph developing the viewpoint or topic.

Unfortunately, some candidates on the tier struggled with the task and seemed uncomfortable writing about their choices, instead spending large parts of their writing asking the reader what they liked or writing in such general terms that it was unclear exactly what their preferences were. Others seemed more concerned about writing a sales pitch for particular clothes or shops and some of these pieces quickly became more an advertisement than an article, and, as on the Higher Tier, there were pieces that became not much more than lists of films, fashionable goods or performers. Markers also reported significant numbers of brief pieces of writing, and although most candidates completed their writing, there may have been issues of time-management for some, which resulted in responses that did not do the writers justice.

Where candidates understood what they were asked to do, there was a lot to enjoy and it was clear that they had enjoyed the opportunity to write about a subject that was close to their heart.

HIGHER TIER

These were the first papers for this specification and therefore perhaps a source of some apprehension for all concerned. However, in many ways it was a return to a familiar examination structure with reading and writing in both papers and there was a strong element of continuity in the material, the questions and the presentation of the papers, all of which was reassuring.

The length of the papers also removed some of the pressure on time management and, although it remains important to organise the available time sensibly, there was more opportunity to pause and reflect as the examinations were rather less frantic than they have been in the recent past.

Unit 1

Section A

This paper restored a test of close reading based on an unseen literary passage and I hoped that the candidates entered for this tier would enjoy the characters of Pat, Bruce and the mysterious Anna and respond to them with some interest and strength of feeling. I was not disappointed and one of the attractions of this passage was that it put the candidates into a familiar world of the behaviour of, and relationships between, young people. There was an engaging lightness in the material but also enough in the characters to provoke a fairly strong response from the candidates.

There were no real surprises in the questions and they were structured so that the candidates could tackle the text in manageable sections. There was a real opportunity to read carefully and methodically and to develop an answer in some detail. I would not wish to encourage long, rambling answers but there was no excuse for thin responses. The candidates had plenty of time and the text offered plenty for them to think and write about.

A1

This question asked the candidates to focus only on the opening twenty five lines of the passage and to track Pat’s thoughts and feelings. A methodical approach worked well here and was the obvious way to tackle the question. There was plenty of relevant detail and most of her thoughts and feelings were about the exterior and interior features of the flat. However, there were also some things to be said about Pat herself and about Bruce.

10 © WJEC CBAC Ltd.

It was clear enough that she felt ‘nervous’ as she approached the flat and was ‘not sure’ about living there. She thought about the process of being scrutinised as a prospective flatmate, of being ‘inspected’, ‘assessed’ and ‘weighed up’ as to her suitability for a shared flat. She seemed to feel rather resentful, or at least less than enthusiastic, about that aspect of the experience. Some suggested that she felt under pressure or intimidated by the thought of being ‘assessed’. No doubt that was a familiar feeling for many of the candidates. As she waited for the door to be answered, Pat turned her mind to the condition of the building and it crossed her mind that the door was ‘shabby’ and needed a coat of paint to cover the scratches. She thought that the flat was only ‘on the edge’ of the fashionable part of the city and the inference was that this perhaps explained the shabbiness of the exterior of the building. However, some argued that she was impressed by the location in the fashionable part of the city, albeit on the edge. She clearly felt anxious as she thought about having to climb four flights of stairs every day to reach the flat but she felt ‘encouraged’ when Bruce smiled and invited her into the flat. She said that she liked the street and the part of town where it was located and felt that it was ‘central’ and ‘quiet’. She noticed that the living room was large but she did not seem too impressed by the ‘rickety’ bookcase. She clearly felt ‘distaste’ for the faded and stained sofa and thought it was ‘typical’ of the ‘battered and humiliated’ sofas found in shared flats. She also thought that any attempt to clean it would yield copious coins and pens and other things dropped from ‘generations of pockets’. This was a relatively straightforward question and gave the candidates an opportunity to get off to a confident and productive start. Very few were in any serious trouble here and many scored very well indeed. A2 This question had two parts but was marked as a whole, requiring impressions of the character of Anna and also ‘how’ the writer created those impressions. The second part of the question was partly a request for supporting evidence but also partly a request for some awareness or analysis of the writer’s method and use of language. Too many candidates completely ignored the second part of the question, although most made good progress in discussing the character of the ‘slovenly’ Anna. Anna was described by Bruce as ‘messy and lazy’ as he looked at the state of the room she had vacated and, although it could have been argued that he was not the most impartial or reliable judge, there was plenty of objective evidence in the text to support his view. The reader got the impression that she was unreliable, or untrustworthy, and did not do what she said she would do as he had asked her twice to clean the room and twice she had promised to do so. However, Bruce observed that she had merely vacuumed the middle of the carpet and left everywhere else ‘dirty and neglected’. Quite a few candidates seemed to be echoing the words of their own mothers as they observed that Anna did ‘half a job’. Some argued persuasively that she was cunning in giving the impression of having cleaned by making a half-hearted effort. However, she had left ‘large balls of dust’ under the bed and a ‘collapsed stack of magazines’. She had made only a token effort at cleaning the room and she seemed to take the view that ‘out of sight’ is ‘out of mind’. She had even left a glass of water stained on the rim with lipstick on the bedside table. I felt some candidates tried to read too much into that detail but it showed how much they were engaged by the text and the character.


Anna was obviously not popular with Bruce and he said he hated going into her room. She was a ‘lingering presence’ in the room because of the mess she had left behind her and he had tried to forget that she ever lived there. Pat was a more objective and reliable witness perhaps and she noticed the ‘musty odour’. When she moved to look in the wardrobe, Bruce drew breath, fearing that Anna may have left a pile of dirty washing. He suggested that was just the sort of thing she would do and that she behaved like a child, leaving clothes on the floor for an adult to pick up. The impression was that Anna was childish, selfish and irresponsible with no thought for others. Pat’s comment that ‘she didn’t keep the place very clean’ seemed to suggest distaste, disapproval and even some sarcasm. Bruce claimed that the flatmates were ‘all pleased’ when Anna moved out. Anna seemed to have a high opinion of herself and had ambitions to become a television journalist which were encouraged by Bruce, according to him, as a way of getting her to leave. However, his dismissive comment that the job offered ‘great tea possibilities’ gave some the impression that she was deluded in her ambition. Some candidates suggested that she was ‘not very bright’ because she had fallen for Bruce’s encouragement. The candidates who tried to argue that the writer revealed Anna’s character through the use of ‘parenthetic commas’ or ‘short sentences’ were perhaps straining credulity a little too far. However, more sensibly, the better candidates pointed out that Anna is never present and therefore most of the impressions are created by what Bruce says about her. There was also Pat’s reaction to the vacated room and the physical evidence of her behaviour and character. However, the writer’s main method here was to use the details of the room to show us Anna’s character. As one candidate neatly put it, ‘the room is a metaphor for Anna’s personality.’ A3 This question involved a rather longer section of text and was a key discriminator. There was a wealth of surface detail about Bruce in these lines but there was some subtlety too and the really important element in this question was the evaluation of the character. It was the personal response to the narrative details which showed depth of understanding, or lack of it. This was an opportunity for many candidates to show what they felt about the character and some made reference back to claim that their opinion had been confirmed or changed by what happened in this part of the story. There were some very strong and shrewd responses to this question and it was often really enjoyable to mark. It was a reminder of how good a test of close reading can be and how much the candidates can get from a text such as this one. The first clue about Bruce in these lines was perhaps his concern about Pat’s ability to pay the rent but the best answers argued that his ‘tentative’ raising of the subject showed a politeness and an unwillingness to be too blunt about money matters. Others argued, rather less convincingly perhaps, that Bruce was greedy or obsessed with money. However, the following lines gave Pat’s perspective on him. As far as she was concerned, Bruce seemed ‘fine’ in an ‘unthreatening’ way, reminding her of a ‘laddish’ cousin who liked rugby and associated pursuits. Pat suggested that Bruce was one of those men who are not ‘moody’ or emotionally demanding and, although she told herself that she would never become involved with someone like Bruce, she admitted that he was good-looking. The lady did perhaps protest rather too much but to this point in the narrative, it could have been argued that Bruce was attractive enough in a ‘laddish’, and possibly rather shallow way, and had some charm.


However, the narrative perspective then shifted to Bruce’s own thoughts, particularly in relation to Pat. This section of the text revealed a clear picture of a vain and rather arrogant young man. He was ‘not sure’ about Pat and, although he felt she would be no trouble as a tenant as she would pay the rent and keep the room clean, he thought her youth might be a problem. He thought the age gap was ‘crucial’ and he had no time for twenty-year-olds because they talk about different things and listen to different music. He decided that Pat was ‘not his type’ and, although ‘attractive enough’, would not turn his head in the street. He used words such as ‘comfortable’, undisturbing’ and ‘average’ to describe her. Most candidates reacted strongly to his self-regarding and patronising attitudes and at times I got a sense that they were trying to resist using the words they really wanted to use about him. He was, to put it mildly, rather full of himself and had a high opinion of his maturity and superiority. The arrogant, sexist and patronising attitudes were reinforced by his thought that Pat might be ‘worth a little attention’ as he was ‘between girlfriends’. Some misread this and claimed that he was cheating on several girlfriends but many candidates grasped that he was thinking of Pat as a potential conquest rather than a potential tenant and his assumption that any woman would come running if he decided to show an interest provoked a lot of reaction.

The description of his relationship with Laura turned hostility to fury in most cases as his selfishness and self-righteousness emerged very clearly. He had been ‘unable’ to find time to visit Laura once a month in London and he blamed her for being ‘unreasonable’. When she had suggested that he might have made the effort if he had really cared about her, most candidates saw that there was a lot of truth in that accusation but the insensitive, self-absorbed Bruce felt aggrieved and reacted with indignation at the ‘unfairness’ of her attack. He thought that the expense was a good enough reason not to visit her and the idea of missing a rugby international just to visit a girlfriend was clearly unthinkable. Laura grasped the fundamental truth that he obviously thought more about rugby than he did about her. The weaker responses tried to argue that Bruce was a victim and expressed misplaced sympathy for him. The better answers showed him no mercy.

The final lines illustrated his vanity beyond any doubt as he unbuttoned his rugby shirt, looked in his ‘favourite’ mirror and judged what he saw to be ‘very satisfactory’. There were some outstanding responses to this question and the level of engagement was very pleasing. I was particularly impressed by the handful of candidates who got beyond their anger with Bruce and refused to take him too seriously. One candidate claimed that she could not help but laugh at Bruce’s foolish conceit.

Section B

This section gave the candidates a choice of narrative titles and there were opportunities to write from personal experience or to create imaginative fiction. Some candidates used the relatively generous allocation of time for this question to pursue quantity rather than quality but I have to say that it was mostly a real pleasure to be marking this type of writing again. There was a lot of very imaginative and entertaining writing on display, although I think a word of warning is perhaps needed for those who cannot resist the temptation to write narratives which are ‘prepared’ and have little or no relevance to any of the given titles.

The weightings for the assessment of writing had changed and there was probably some apprehension about how this would affect the outcomes. No doubt some candidates did less well because of the greater emphasis on technical accuracy but my experience suggested that some also gained from the change and the overall effect was not hugely significant. That said, most candidates would benefit if they took more care with spelling, sentence structure and punctuation, although it is not necessary to force ‘advanced’ punctuation into a piece of writing. It is unnatural and often used incorrectly.


(a) Write a story which ends: … and that wiped the smile off her face.

Titles which require the writer to structure a narrative to meet a given conclusion can be difficult, and there were quite a few ‘crash landings’ among the offerings here, but this clearly suggested a narrative which included a reversal, a sense of poetic justice.

(b) The Choice.

This was a very ‘open’ title and allowed the candidates a range of possibilities. Some of the choices were rather forced or contrived but there were some very good narratives which posed moral or practical dilemmas, including everything from whether or not to save a life or take a penalty. There were quite a few narratives based on military action and, although this type of story can often be very unconvincing, there were quite a few which were very successful, and memorable.

(c) Write about a time when you were at a children’s party.

Narratives based on personal experience are often a safe option but there is no reason why they should not include some embellishment in the interest of entertainment. The children’s party offered an opportunity to write with humour and often with a lot of charm. I always like this kind of task and there were some outstanding examples here. The trick is to capture the detail and the tone and success is often a matter of how the story is narrated rather than the actual events.

(d) Write a story which begins: I didn’t know if I had the courage to do this …

The opening of this option encouraged a personal narrative where courage was required from the protagonist and it provided a way in. There were some very awkward transitions here and I felt that this was not the most successful title. There were some excellent exceptions, but a lot of the narratives were rather uncomfortable and rather self-indulgent. There were also quite a lot of responses which had real trouble with tenses.

(e) Making a Difference.

This was also an ‘open’ title, which could be approached in many ways. Some candidates wrote about the difference they had made to others while some wrote about the difference others had made to them. It was a minority choice but it seemed to work quite well, although there were some examples of writing which were not really narrative.

Unit 2

Section A

This material was deliberately chosen for the first examination in the confident expectation that it would engage the interest of the candidates. The focus on rollercoasters proved as irresistible as I had hoped and Thorpe Park and Alton Towers, both iconic venues for teenagers, provoked a lot of thoughtful, and often lengthy, responses. Many of the candidates found plenty to say about the passages and there was no lack of engagement with the material.

The texts were not too daunting and there were no real surprises in the package of questions. The changes to the structure of the paper ensured that very few candidates seemed to be in any real trouble with time.


A1

This question was based on a complete but fairly short text and required the candidates to show that they could follow an argument and construct an answer which was coherent and selective. However, it was not a particularly difficult argument to follow and those who made a good selection of appropriate textual detail scored well. This was an opportunity to get off to a solid start and there were a lot of good answers. Tracking methodically through the text harmed no-one.

Andrew Baker began by arguing that Thorpe Park is ‘Rollercoaster Central’, a place of pilgrimage for those who love rollercoasters. It was also described as ‘the thrill capital of England’ and particularly appealing to teenagers as it is ‘the most terrifying location inside the M25’. The text mentioned high speed, raw thrills, scary rides and setting the pulse racing and gave a whole series of examples and illustrations to support the idea that Thorpe Park is exciting for teenagers. However, there was a danger that candidates would merely repeat the idea of ‘thrills’ in a variety of ways and that this would distort the outcome. To address this potential problem, it was decided to allow the notion of ‘thrills’ once but also to allow the candidates to use whatever evidence they chose to make that point.

There were lots of other reasons why teenagers liked Thorpe Park and independence was an obvious one. Baker suggested that parents will allow their teenage children to go there on their own. The appeal of being free of parental control was mentioned more than once in this article. The writer also claimed that there is nowhere like it so close to London and that it was better than rival attractions such as Legoland or the London Dungeon. The names of the rides (appealing in themselves to teenagers) suggested that it is not for the old, the young or the timid and that is precisely why teenagers like it. It is aimed at them.

Baker also stressed the variety of rides in the park. There are some ‘gentle’ rides for the ‘wimps’ and also ‘water-based’ rides for those who do not mind getting soaked. Thorpe Park also has Colossus, which appeals to the rollercoaster ‘purists’, and Stealth, which is the fastest rollercoaster in Europe. Saw Alive and The Swarm add the irresistible experience of horror, providing a ‘supremely creepy movie’ to the ‘stomach-challenging’ action. There are actors on Saw Alive to add to the fear and there is so much to experience that it is good value. Andrew Baker even suggested that teenagers enjoy the queues because they can anticipate the thrills ahead of them and dissect those already experienced. The text clearly made the point that there is plenty to do at Thorpe Park and teenagers talk about their experiences for weeks afterwards.

This question could be tackled quite succinctly by those who had some conceptual overview of the text and very few candidates failed to score at least reasonably well here. However, those who chose to use bullet points did themselves no favours as their answers were often unselective and lacked clarity and cohesion. It is unwise to use bullet points as a way of answering questions on this tier, unless explicitly instructed to do so.

A2

The purpose of James Kenny’s text was to convince his readers, including sceptics such as me, that Alton Towers is indeed a ‘great day out’ and this question focused on how he set about the task. It was analytical rather than evaluative and the wording of the question deliberately attempted to steer the candidates away from personal response.

There was more text to cope with in this question and there was a danger that some candidates could get bogged down in the wealth of surface details and miss the overview. However, weak answers tended to be thin and limited in range and development.


Alternatively, they were unselective in their use of textual material or relied on the unsupported, or inappropriate, spotting of devices.

Those who made a sensible selection of material from the text coped well enough, even if they tended to rely on spotting factual content and key words and phrases. However, the best answers were selective and analytical in their use of content and language and were genuinely engaged with the author’s method.

An obvious feature of Kenny’s text was the way he based his argument on personal experience, giving a detailed account of a visit he made to the theme park on a school trip. He tried to show the sense of excitement and anticipation by claiming that the visit was the ‘sole topic of conversation’ in the school yard for eight months and that on the day he woke up early. On the day of the trip he described the tension and anxiety but also the excitement and anticipation. When he finally got into the theme park he described the ‘noise and euphoria’ as hitting him like an ‘intoxicating drug’. He did mention the food outlets and gift shops and the Swan Boats, although he was quite clear that these tame attractions would only appeal to adults and hold no interest whatsoever for ‘crazed, teenage lunatics’.

He then focused on a detailed description of Oblivion, which he described as ‘one of the scariest rollercoasters you can ever experience’, and he even suggested that the long queues only add to the tension. He described the experience of this ride in the present tense to add a sense of immediacy and, although the Lord of Darkness is something you are ‘subjected’ to, the ‘infamous’ drop is probably part of the appeal as the carriage stops just over the edge and you are actually staring down into the hole. He described the descent as a ‘plunge’ at 68 mph during which you are too busy screaming to remember anything. He does admit to feeling ‘relieved’ when it was over but he clearly enjoyed the thrill and the experience of fear as he dropped 150 feet. Some candidates did notice the use of very precise figures to reinforce the points.

He then turned his attention to Nemesis, an inverted rollercoaster and the first of its kind in Europe. The anecdote of the woman who had a panic-attack at the sight of red water showed the fear generated by Nemesis but James Kenny was ‘delighted’ to have a seat on the front row of the ride. The loops are ‘terrifying’ but clearly thrilling as his eyes ‘slam shut’ and he ‘screams, shouts and laughs out of terror’. He felt regret that he did not have any visual memories.

In addition to those authorial methods already mentioned here, it was not difficult to spot the language of thrills and terror in this text and also the use of superlatives. However, it was not enough to assert that he used superlatives. At least one example was needed, and I was reminded of how dangerous a little learning can be by the candidate who claimed that the word ‘hot’ was a good example of the superlative.

A3

The test of the ability to compare and contrast is always challenging and this was no exception, although the question did ask the candidates to focus on a single aspect of the texts. The candidates were also left to make their own decisions about how to approach the question and present their answers. The question was intended to be rigorous and it proved to be exactly that as the candidates had to be accurate and precise in their comments.

Andrew Baker looked at queuing in two ways. He suggested that teenagers like the queues at Thorpe Park because they can anticipate the thrill ahead and also talk about previous rides. However, he suggested that adults may find the queues too much and that they should book admission in advance and then use Fastrack to jump the queues at the rides. If the answers were not precise, then the candidates often found themselves in the strange position of arguing that the queues were enjoyable and boring.


James Kenny addressed the issue of queues in a different way. He did not look at the different responses of teenagers and adults but instead looked at the various types of queue in Alton Towers as he toured the site. He was pleased to have missed the queue at the ticket office because he had paid in advance and he suggested it was quick at the turnstiles because the staff were very efficient. He then suggested that the long queue at Oblivion was actually just adding to the tension and sense of anticipation. However, Nemesis, which also had a long queue, was boring as it seemed like ‘eternity’ and the crowd just ‘shuffled slowly’. Kenny did make the point that there was some attempt to keep the people in the queues interested and entertained by using safety messages and the ‘Lord of Darkness’ at Oblivion and the canyon of red water at Nemesis. He also pointed out that the queues could induce stress as the red water was scary and a woman had a panic-attack. Some answers were chaotic in presentation and content and candidates had to be careful not to attempt generalisations which were simply not true. This question was difficult but the section as a whole seemed to get the balance right and most candidates seemed to achieve an overall mark which reflected their efforts and ability. I am sure that lessons will be learned quickly about how to tackle the comparison question. Section B There was only one piece of writing in this section and the candidates were asked to choose one of music, fashion and movies to write a lively article about their personal preferences. This was a task which gave them a real opportunity to show some flair and to voice their opinions and there were some outstanding responses. In essence, the task asked them to write about what they liked, why they liked it and what it meant to them. It was really no more complicated than that, although a sense of audience and a grasp of the journalistic style certainly helped. Some candidates indulged in unnecessary complication and just could not keep the actual task in view. They tended to write at their audience rather than for them. Very few candidates failed to write about their chosen topic but not enough really grasped the task and some were struggling to express personal opinions. The best answers moved easily from the general to the particular and included specific examples and thoughtful discussion of why they liked particular artists, movies or fashion styles. The examiners were often taken into unfamiliar but extremely interesting worlds of entertainment or fashion and those who were opinionated and lively really did themselves justice. Some candidates placed their focus on a single movie and wrote a detailed review. This approach worked fairly well but it was not quite the task. On the other hand, some managed to write about one of the topics without mentioning a single example and kept the discussion completely unspecific and general. Some candidates also got rather distracted by the style of the teenage magazine and included lists and special offers and competitions which were not really appropriate here. Although it did not work perfectly for everyone, this was a good task for the writers and the readers. The writers seemed to enjoy having their say and the readers mostly enjoyed what they said. We cannot ask for much more than that.


ENGLISH LITERATURE

General Certificate of Secondary Education

January 2014 Chair of Examiners: Jonathan Harrington

Chief Examiner: Margaret Graham Principal Examiner: Mair Lewis Unit 1 General Comments As the unitised qualification is no longer available in England, the January Unit 1 examination was undertaken by candidates outside of England only. Of Mice and Men remained the favourite text on both tiers, with To Kill a Mockingbird and Chanda’s Secrets also studied by some candidates. All three texts clearly captured the interest of the great majority of candidates and examiners commented on the high level of engagement seen in responses on both tiers. Responses to Chanda’s Secrets on Higher Tier were sound and engaged, suggesting that the text has found its place in the curriculum in some centres and that candidates are responding thoughtfully to the ideas and characters in the novel. On Foundation Tier, although most candidates navigated their way through the question paper sensibly, there was a worrying number who attempted questions on more than one text, sometimes on all of the texts. While weaker candidates lack familiarity with the lay-out of the paper, it was a pity that so many of them seemed to have wasted much of their time reading extracts from novels they had not studied, with some basing essay responses on extracts from unread texts also. The proportion of younger candidates was considerably higher than in previous series and this was evident in both the content of their responses and the approaches they took in showing their understanding of the texts and the poems. Examiners found that many candidates were unable to locate the extract from the Steinbeck novel, for example, which led to some misreading of the mood and atmosphere or the characters’ behaviour. Essay questions were, on the whole, quite thoughtfully addressed and most candidates knew how to show their understanding of theme and characterisation, although there were rather more brief responses than usual on Higher Tier and some on both tiers which were over-reliant on the extract for content, particularly in Of Mice and Men. There were also many responses on both tiers where candidates perhaps intuitively grasped the main ideas in the poems but could not adequately support their ideas with detailed reference to the texts, suggesting some inexperience in technique. In a few responses, there was also a limited awareness of how marks were awarded for the different questions. Some candidates commented on the social, historical and cultural context of the poetry (or lack of it), for example, focused their attention exclusively on one poem or did not attempt to compare the poems. These weaknesses did affect the marks awarded and the implications of early entry could usefully be considered by centres in the light of their candidates’ performance.


HIGHER TIER Section A The extract from Of Mice and Men gave attentive candidates plenty of scope to explore the poignant mood and atmosphere at the end of the novel. There were some sensitive analyses here in which perceptive candidates looked closely at the heart-breaking mismatch between Lennie’s childish joy in reuniting with his friend and George’s resignation and sorrow at this point in the text. Steinbeck’s description of the landscape at the beginning of the extract was skilfully addressed, with many noting the effect of ‘blue and soft’. Those who also saw the subtle use of natural description at the end, with its ‘bluer’ shadows and the disturbance of water in the pool, were clearly engaging with the writer’s technique and were rewarded highly for their sensitivity to language and effects. One masterful response referred to the beauty of the language in both references to the landscape being ‘deliberately undermined by an immediately following comment on the threat posed by the shouting of the men and the “crashing” which came closer.’ Lennie’s naïve puzzlement at George’s unwillingness to berate him as expected was noted by many candidates as poignant and the apt selection of vocabulary which suggested George’s sadness featured in many good responses. ‘Woodenly’ and ‘his voice was monotonous’ were common selections which showed a sound and close reading of the text. Repeated actions by George were also commented on, such as shaking himself (‘as if steeling himself for the inevitable’, as one candidate wrote) or the way he twice stops speaking as he considers the effect his words have on Lennie. The impact of George’s decision on his behaviour, shown in references such as ‘George was quiet for a moment’ and the way he spoke ‘shakily’, was analysed in close detail by able candidates and where these comments were linked with ideas about the kind of atmosphere created by the writer, candidates could be, and indeed were, given very high marks. In the middle range of marks, candidates tended either to track through the extract purposefully but misread some of the subtext or, in some cases, to show a clear understanding of the mood but without the detailed support from the extract expected for a higher mark. Where candidates only became aware of the particular situation faced by the characters towards the end of their reading, George’s feelings and motivations were often misread. Such responses referred to an ‘angry atmosphere’ because of George’s irritation with Lennie, which was not really evident here, or there was reference to Lennie’s happiness but less focus on the way the mood is affected by George’s state of mind. The subtlety of the description of the landscape was sometimes missed by candidates who felt that it set an entirely calm scene and mood. Some responses at this level were patchy in that there was a clear understanding of the mood but comments lacked focus on the details in the extract which showed a grasp on how it was evoked. Many candidates who showed a good grasp of the text in the essay question did not score well on the extract because they relied on a general understanding of the relationship between George and Lennie rather than the specific circumstances described here. Some asserted that the extract was from the beginning of the novel and simply missed the references to the fast-approaching posse of men who would kill Lennie. Some thought that the ‘sound of men shouting’ referred to those chasing them out of Weed, although this sequence is depicted in the film rather than the novel. The impact of the scene and to a large extent its mood and atmosphere depends on the reader’s awareness that the familiar mantra spoken by the characters here – ‘Guys like us…’ – is not delivered in the same way as at the beginning of the novel. Many of the candidates would have fared better if they had read the extract more carefully or perhaps simply known the text (rather than the film) better.


Most candidates chose the question on the relationship between George and Lennie and examiners found that, in general, responses showed quite a thorough understanding of both the affectionate loyalty and the irritable resentment between them. In the middle mark range, candidates often adopted a chronological approach in their commentaries, starting with sensible observations about the opening chapter and how Lennie’s reliance on George, George’s resentment of his friend’s dangerous behaviour and the love between them is shown on their journey to the ranch. Some candidates were also able to use detailed references from this section of the novel to support more perceptive ideas, such as George’s keen sense of obligation and his own need for companionship, shown in the speed with which his anger dissipates. Lennie’s instinctive manipulation of his friend was also used by many candidates to show either his under-estimated intelligence or, as written by one thoughtful candidate, ‘his animal instinct which contrasts with George’s more rational but still not very successful intelligence’. Events such as the fight with Curley or the early encounter with Curley’s wife were used to support ideas about George’s protectiveness of Lennie, though some also saw how Steinbeck signalled the hopelessness of his attempts to care for Lennie. In better responses there was a strong analysis of Slim’s conversation with George and how it revealed the origins of the close bond between them. Some candidates saw their past experiences as evidence that George’s feelings were based on guilt and a sense of duty, while others felt that George only expressed his real affection for Lennie to Slim. In most responses, marks could be awarded for an understanding of the particular effect that 1930s ranch life had on the relationship between George and Lennie. Many considered in some depth the loneliness of typical migrant workers and how this added to the need each of the friends felt for the other. There were some thoughtful contrasts with other characters, such as Carlson or Candy, who showed that brutality and desperation were the results of a lack of companionship. More subtle approaches to the impact of contextual factors explored the way in which other characters’ vulnerability affected George and Lennie’s relationship – how Curley’s wife’s own neglected needs worked to destroy Lennie, for example. There were some approaches which were not always successful in allowing candidates to discuss the text in detail. Some essays were structured around different ideas on the relationship such as ‘Lennie and George are like master and pet’, followed by a paragraph about the two as ‘brothers’ with more on ‘father and son’. While these ideas were sometimes useful pegs on which to hang sensible comments and references, some essays did not go much beyond these simple statements and ideas were expressed rather generally and with limited support from the text. The second essay choice, on whether most characters ‘lacked the strength of character to change’ was less often selected but often rather better done. In some very thoughtful responses, there was a strong focus on two or three characters in the novel and both the ways in which they wanted to change their lives and Steinbeck’s characterisation of them were explored. Curley’s wife’s dreams of Hollywood fame were often discussed purposefully. Some candidates blamed her own naivety and lack of education for her failure to change her oppressive life with a neglectful husband while contextual factors such as the prevailing sexism of the time and the lack of opportunities for women during the Depression were considered important by others. The best responses combined both an examination of character and the social/economic restrictions of the time and place in which the novel is set, evaluating the extent to which personal weaknesses and contextual factors contributed to the failure of aspirations. Crooks’ embittered, fearful response to his low status as a black man in a white man’s world proved a productive line of approach, as did Candy’s desperation in offering his life savings to George and Lennie in exchange for security in old age.


Some responses tended to address the question a little more mechanically, listing different characters and commenting on whether and why they wanted to change their lives. While there was often a sound knowledge of the text shown in these responses, there was sometimes a reworking of past questions on dreams, strengths/weaknesses and power, rather than a consistently thoughtful focus on the set task.

To Kill a Mockingbird was the second most popular text and elicited a wide range of responses across the mark range. The extract question asked for an appraisal of Calpurnia’s speech and behaviour during the ‘mad dog’ incident and most candidates found plenty to say about her quick, authoritative reactions to the approach of the rabid animal. One perceptive response recorded how Calpurnia’s rather dismissive attitude to the children in the opening section belied a ‘deep love and care for the children which only came out when they were in danger.’ Candidates who tracked the early part of the extract carefully noted that her rapid questioning of Jem about the dog showed her quick-thinking and intelligent reaction, their comments often supported by selecting the detail about her voice which ‘hardened’ as she interrogated Jem. The speed and authority with which she ‘grabbed’ the children and ‘ran’ them home was also much quoted, showing a clear understanding of how vocabulary selection by the writer influences the reader’s impressions. Calpurnia’s status as a black maid was understood in the best responses as an obstacle which she had to overcome urgently in her dealings with the white neighbours and her actions in approaching the front door of the Radley house were seen as brave, not only because of the approaching dog but because a black maid would not normally use the front door of a white man’s house.

In relatively few responses, the focus of candidates’ attention was not always sustained, so that comments about what Jem said about the dog were included and there was some over-analysis of Calpurnia’s use of ‘I swear to God’ as a blasphemous statement rather than showing the urgency of the situation. In general, however, examiners could find a lot to reward where candidates looked carefully at Calpurnia’s behaviour in the extract and supported their observations with some detailed references.

Most candidates chose the question on how characters are presented as suffering from other people’s prejudice although the question on Dill was addressed by some who showed a detailed knowledge of the text. A range of characters was discussed by candidates with reference to the kind of prejudice they endured, though better responses offered depth in their analysis rather than breadth in the number of characters. The trial of Tom Robinson, particularly the verdict, was commonly used although some responses also referred productively to the attempt by white men to attack Tom in the jailhouse. Boo Radley and his treatment by Maycomb residents as well as his own family were discussed thoughtfully by many candidates, often with some understanding of the mockingbird motif and how Lee used it in the novel to present the idea of prejudice.

At the highest level, responses gave an overview of the way the writer dealt with the central theme of prejudice. There was some perceptive discussion of Atticus’s presentation as a character who we can trust and through whose portrayal the prejudice of others is criticised. One candidate wrote that ‘Alexandra’s pathetic prejudice against people based on their families is held up for ridicule by the writer’ while another high-scoring response suggested that ‘Boo is one victim of prejudice who Lee wants us to feel sorry for so that we can see what damage prejudice does to people.’

Slightly weaker responses tended to make less clear and appropriate selections. Although a case can be made for Atticus as a victim of Maycomb’s prejudice, there were, perhaps, more fruitful approaches to the task. Similarly, discussions of Bob Ewell or Calpurnia, who are certainly discriminated against in the novel, did not always get very far because these characters’ other attributes are perhaps more important in Lee’s presentation of them.


The question on Dill produced some highly detailed essays which were well rewarded for the breadth and range of knowledge shown. Dill’s family history, his relationships with Jem and Scout and his reaction to the verdict in the trial were often well documented. Relatively few of these thorough responses, however, explored Lee’s presentation of Dill – the role and purpose of the character in the novel as a whole – or saw how the characterisation shed light on its themes and ideas.

Weaker responses sometimes ran out of material fairly quickly, relying on factual details about his background but with less grasp on what distinguishes Dill from Jem and Scout and why Harper Lee included this character in her novel.

The portrayal of Mrs Tafa in the Chanda’s Secrets extract elicited some thoughtful, sympathetic responses from candidates who had studied this novel. Although there was some digression into the portrayal of the character earlier in the novel in some weaker responses, most focused purposefully on her emotional distress and the shock of her revelation about the death of her son. The presentation of Mrs Tafa shown in ‘blubbers like a baby’ was often quoted, sometimes with comments about her rather over-dramatic behaviour here. Her explanation of the circumstances of Emmanuel’s death was addressed with some focus on Mrs Tafa’s self-critical speech and some mention was made of her obvious pride and love for her son. The end of the extract, where Mrs Tafa regains some of her poise and strength of character, was seen by careful readers as a turning point for her as a character and in general candidates fared well if they noticed and commented on the changes in her speech and behaviour during the extract from a rather pathetic, distressed woman to a more composed and determined figure at the end.

Most candidates wrote about the relationship between Chanda and Esther in the essay responses although there were some responses on the second question. A thorough and often thoughtful approach was adopted by most candidates in addressing the twists and turns in the relationship between the two girls. The details of their carefree childhood experiences were less well-known although some candidates made good use of the contrast between the beginning and end of the novel in terms of the balance between the two. Empathetic responses to Esther’s experiences as a prostitute helped candidates to highlight Chanda’s loyalty and care of her friend and examiners noted that many candidates supported their ideas with detailed reference to the text.

The question on lies and their importance in the novel was less popular and candidates who attempted it struggled to go beyond outlining some of the lies in the novel. Mrs Tafa’s concealment of the real cause of her son’s death was commonly referred to, as was the nature of Mama’s illness. The identification of AIDS as being the main ‘lie’ told in the novel did not always lead into an examination of why so many people lied about it and how the novel is structured around the uncovering of lies by different characters.

SECTION B

In the poetry, most candidates discussed ‘Considering the Snail’ with a good degree of engagement and understanding, though the best responses tackled ‘The Gull’ equally committedly as well as offering thoughtful ideas about the similarities and differences between them. In the Thom Gunn poem, candidates generally understood the poet’s admiration for the snail, although for the higher bands it was necessary to locate this sense of fascination or admiration in the language and imagery of the poem. The idea of the effort required by the snail to move, suggested by ‘pushes’ and ‘heavy’ in the first stanza, was commented on sensibly by most and in some responses there was a strong analysis of how the language and images work to portray the snail as a much more impressive creature than one would expect. Some found this inference in the antlers and the idea of a snail hunting while better responses referred to the use of abstract words such as ‘power’, ‘desire’ and ‘fury’ to elevate the struggle of the snail in the grass to almost heroic proportions. The contrast between dark and light, with some interpretation of how this idea worked in the poem, was also a feature of higher scoring responses.


‘A Gull’ by Edwin Morgan proved more challenging for some candidates who missed the sense of intimidation and suspicion brought by the bird and felt by the narrator. Weaker candidates struggled to move beyond a literal reading of the poem and wrote as if the gull actually ‘crashed through the glass’ and some even thought that the narrator was a fish! Other more literal readings led candidates into comments about the poem being set on a ship or ‘in a very cold place’ because of the references to ‘open waters’ and ‘icebergs’.

There were, however, some succinct and highly polished analyses of the poem in which very perceptive candidates explored the disdainful, intimidating presentation of the gull through the language and imagery. The humour implied by ‘supergull’, as well as the vision of the ‘waste and dread of open waters’ brought by the bird was explored in the best responses. The comparative element of the task was mostly addressed discretely but examiners also rewarded implicit comparison where candidates referred back to the way the snail was admired when discussing the sense of intimidation felt by the poet in ‘The Gull’, or noticed the way language was used to create an impression of the creatures described. In comparing the poems, candidates described the animals as ‘majestic’ (a very commonly used description) or admirable. Having found these thoughtful links between the poet’s stance in the poems, abler candidates focused on how these attitudes were conveyed through the language and images used.

FOUNDATION TIER

SECTION A

As on Higher Tier, candidates who read the extract carefully and understood the situation described in it generally fared well. For marks of 8 and above, answers tended to respond sympathetically to both characters in the extract but also focused attention on some of the words and phrases which Steinbeck uses to evoke this sympathy, such as George’s way of speaking ‘woodenly’ or the use of ‘shakily’. In some cases, there were thoughtful comments on the way the tension is built in the extract, from the sound of shouting in the distance to the ‘crashing in the brush’. Most candidates given high marks here were well aware of the approach of Curley and the men and how this influenced George’s behaviour but many candidates simply missed these references and some asserted that the extract described the early part of the novel. Other candidates, rather frustratingly for examiners, showed awareness of the tension and made comments such as ‘you can tell something bad is going to happen’, but did not accurately identify the reason for this tension and were therefore led down some blind alleys, assuming that George was furious with Lennie and that at the end of the extract they were, once again, good friends.

Where the specific scene was not located, examiners could still reward responses where candidates showed a general sympathy for both characters and were able to make some sense of the interaction between them. There were some scripts in which the extract question had been addressed thoroughly, if not always effectively, but the essay responses were very brief or in some cases non-existent. This lack of exam discipline was a shame where candidates showed real engagement with the characters in the extract and obviously had a wider knowledge of the novel from which to draw in their extract responses.

Most candidates chose the question on the relationship between George and Lennie. There were some thorough, empathetic responses here where a wide-ranging knowledge of the events and characters in the novel emerged, sometimes aptly supported by detailed references. In successful approaches, as always, candidates selected specific events, such as the fight between Curley and Lennie and the ending of the novel, rather than providing a simple narration of the plot. There was also some focus in the better responses so that particular aspects of the relationship, such as George’s protectiveness or Lennie’s fierce loyalty to his friend, were illustrated by reference to specific events.


There was more vagueness, generality and brevity in the less successful responses although most candidates knew the story and made some simple points about the men’s close bond. There were fewer responses to the second question on characters who ‘want to change their lives but can’t.’ Those who interpreted the idea of wanting to change as having dreams and aspirations had plenty to say about Curley’s wife, Crooks and Candy. There was sometimes some pertinent use of contextual knowledge at the highest level also, with some thoughtful responses in which the poverty and isolation caused by the Great Depression were seen as powerful influences on characters who were unhappy. While not all candidates articulated their understanding of the context of the novel explicitly, examiners could reward where comments showed an awareness of these issues. As one candidate wrote, ‘It was no good George wanting a better life while he had Lennie hanging round his neck and no money in his pocket.’ Poor selection of characters and a very narrow view of what was being asked did not help weaker candidates to develop their ideas and show their knowledge of the text. Some chose Slim as an example of someone who didn’t want to change his life, while some chose Crooks who they believed wanted not to be black or Curley who wanted to be taller. While such ideas are not untrue and do show an awareness of characters’ thoughts and feelings, there was little scope for development or discussion. To Kill a Mockingbird was the only other text studied for the examination on Foundation Tier. Candidates mostly knew what was happening in the extract and better responses had a clear focus on Calpurnia’s speech and behaviour. Although there was much paraphrasing, some candidates noticed the hardening of Calpurnia’s voice as she realised the danger and there was some general awareness of the urgency of her actions and her assertiveness in ensuring the safety of the children and the neighbours. Examiners could reward highly where candidates maintained a focus on Calpurnia and where her speech and behaviour in response to the dog’s appearance was looked at closely. One candidate noticed the way she ‘barked orders at the Miss Eula May which she probably wouldn’t do to white people unless she was really scared’ – a valid point, simply made, but which showed a thoughtful reading of that part of the extract. Weaker candidates had a shakier grasp of the content of the extract and some were particularly confused by the dog’s name and imagined the dog was a person called Tim Johnson. Most candidates chose the question on prejudice and although most candidates tended to list characters who were affected by prejudice in the novel with a brief comment on how, there were some better responses which discussed the different kinds of prejudice suffered by characters. Surprisingly, the trial of Tom Robinson was fairly often missed although the rumours spread about Boo Radley and the mockingbird theme were addressed quite sensibly in responses given marks in the middle range. There were few responses to the question on Dill although those candidates who attempted it showed some knowledge of the character’s past, his relationships with Jem and Scout and some of his personal characteristics, such as his vivid imagination. A few weaker responses were very brief outlines of who Dill is with limited reference to what happens in the novel.


SECTION B There was a good deal of productive engagement with ‘The Hurt Boy and the Birds’ although ‘Considering the Snail’ was generally, though not always, less well understood. The majority of candidates grasped the central idea of the birds’ ability to soothe and comfort a bullied boy in the Agard poem and many responses showed candidates beginning to select and comment on meaning and language. Very many made reference to ‘fed them the crumbs of his heart’, often with clear understanding and some exploration of the image as showing how unhappy the boy is. The details suggesting the kind of bullying endured by the boy were also readily understood and the last image of the feathers was approached in an interpretative, often sensitive way by many candidates. The idea of wings being linked to freedom and escape was discussed at length and the ‘new ways to become’ in the last line also elicited some thoughtful, interpretative handling. In some responses to this poem, there was a tendency to focus more on the bullying and less on the birds. While credit for relevant comments could be given, it was helpful to candidates to consider what the poet was trying to say about the effect of the birds, particularly when finding links between this poem and the Thom Gunn poem. In ‘Considering the Snail’, better responses recognised the determination of the snail and some were able to identify the poet’s sense of wonder and fascination with the creature. Quite a few, as on Higher Tier, referred to the poet’s interest in a small, usually insignificant creature and the way the antlers are used to make it seem ‘majestic’ or worthy of consideration. Where responses showed a good grasp of the implied attitude of the poet towards the snail, more meaningful links were found between the poems. One candidate wrote that both poets ‘show respect for the animals’ while another commented that ‘both writers link up with the animals in their hearts’. There were some serious misreadings of the poem, however, where candidates struggled to follow the visual image of the snail moving through the grass, observed by the poet. The antlers drew some to believe that the snail was actually a deer or was hunting for deer and for some the blades of grass were related to garden machinery in some way. Quite a few candidates had the snail ‘stamped on’ or crushed at the end, possibly suggested by ‘broken white across litter.’ Again in common with some Higher Tier responses, there was some rather empty spotting of devices, not all accurately identified, and some counting of stanza lines. On the whole, however, there was clear understanding of and engagement with the Agard poem and most candidates found some relevant comments to make on the Gunn. GCSE English Lang-English Lit Report January 2014/ED 04/3/14

© 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

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.wjec.co.uk/exams.html

gcse examiners' reports - Create a Paper - CBAC

Documents