GCSE English/English Language

Transcription

1 GCSE English/English Language NENG1F Understanding and producing non-fiction texts Report on the Examination 5700/5705 November 2014 Version: 0.1

2 Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2014 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.

3 General Comments There were only a very small number of candidates 450 in total entered for the November retake exam, from a relatively wide range of centres. Evidence suggests that the vast majority of these were candidates who had missed out on a C grade in June. There had clearly been wellplanned revision for some candidates, who applied what they had learnt in a methodical and effective way. However, there were also candidates who appeared to be simply having another go with little evidence of being better prepared this time around. Centres need to address the need for revision lessons and target their teaching as carefully and precisely as possible to maximise the students chances of success. Questions The response to Question 1a was predictably robust, with most candidates able to write four clear statements about the new Christmas tree. Only 10% of candidates missed out on full marks for this question and the reason was invariably that they mistook the focus of the task and selected a fact about the traditional tree instead. Ensuring they are clear about the precise focus of the task is the only guarantee of success. Question 1b saw a very different response from candidates who, whilst able to identify the reactions of local people to the new tree and retrieve evidence from the text to support their statements, struggled to make any inference and, by so doing, to demonstrate their independent understanding. Suggestions that local people preferred a more natural, traditional tree and resented the council spending money on a plastic decoration which failed to create a sense of the magic and beauty of Christmas, were all appropriate inferences but rarely expressed by candidates. Only 25% of candidates were able to meet the full criteria for Band 2. When it came to Question 2, candidates seemed slightly more confident in making inferences, responding very enthusiastically to the source material which detailed the experiences of a student volunteer at the Glastonbury festival. The best candidates were able to make clear statements and infer a range of benefits for the student, but there were a significant proportion of candidates (more than 70%) who failed to explain what they had understood in their own words and read between the lines to draw out the implicit meaning in the text. This is a distinct and important area where centres could provide additional teaching to improve outcomes for candidates. The lessons to be drawn from Q1a, 1b and 2 remain the same each series: Encourage candidates to read the question carefully as well as the text. Highlight the focus of the task and refer to it in each new point made in 1b and 2 Use the mark scheme with candidates to ensure they know precisely what to demonstrate for Band 3 marks and have a clear method for basic comprehension make a statement, support it, make an inference from it. There were some signs of improvement in the way candidates approached Question 3, with far less evidence of candidates including references to presentation features as opposed to language features. In fact, from a disappointing 45% of candidates achieving marks no higher than Band 1 in June, the proportion dropped to just 10%. It was observed that the majority of candidates were able not only to identify a range of language features used in the text but also to select relevant examples of each. As a result, almost 50% of candidates were awarded a mark of 6, which is a significant improvement since the summer series. 3 of 5

4 The text was a particularly rich source of material for writing about language a vivid, descriptive account of a visit to a tomato festival in Spain full of metaphor, simile, onomatopoeia and alliteration. Candidates, however, appeared to think that once they had identified and exemplified features accurately, their task was done, without concerning themselves with why the writer had chosen those particular features; what the connotations of the words were or what effects those choices had on the reader. Only 30% of candidates were able to engage with language in an effective way and achieve a mark at the top of Band 2. A few were able, for example, to explore the extended metaphor of a battle and commented on the exciting imagery created by phrases such as slushy shrapnel and the wall of human bodies, but too many candidates identified and supported the language devices, then moved on without further comment. This focus on the effect language has on the reader must be a key area for centres to address for the future. There was a similar lack of comment on effect evident in responses to Question 4 too, which suggests centres could usefully and economically focus on one skill commenting on effect and make significant improvements to achievement on two high-scoring questions. Realistically, most candidates write far too much for Q4, achieving all of their marks within the first page and then just going on to do more of the same on more and more features. Candidates would be well advised to focus on two or three features found in both texts and comment in detail on those, rather than try to cover every presentation feature possible. There was again, as in Question 3, an abundance of material for candidates to choose from. Candidates were given a choice of any two of the three texts and some were able to make interesting comparisons between the presentation features, such as the use of two images giving readers a different perspective on the event (or tree). For example, source 2 gave candidates the opportunity to write about how the images portrayed both the hard work of volunteering at Glastonbury alongside an image of the fun the volunteers enjoyed too. Images are often the most useful focus for candidates to make comparisons, rather than font or headlines. It was disappointing therefore to note that more than 60% of candidates were unable to either compare the presentation features or comment on their effect. Once again it was a real pleasure to see how well candidates performed on Section B in the Writing questions. In response to Question 5, all candidates were able to choose a celebration that they enjoyed and almost all of them were able to explain something about what made it special. There was a wide range of festivals chosen, from music festivals in Belfast to heavy metal events in Germany, as well as the more general celebrations of Halloween, Easter and of course Christmas. Candidates were most successful when they were able to go beyond a description or account of the event to provide explicit reasons for its importance and thereby move to the top of Band 2 and into Band 3. Candidates who achieved lower marks tended to be limited by a narrative approach which led to a series of anecdotes without any attempt to be objective and reflect on why it was so special. However, there was a widespread enthusiasm for this writing task which was matched by a pleasing degree of technical accuracy. Responses, by and large, were substantial, detailed and well-structured. Question 6 invited candidates to consider how we behave as a society in response to occasions such as Christmas and Valentines Day, which required them to adopt a more objective point of view and a more formal register. Many candidates were able to do this with maturity and presented thoughtful, considered arguments, often using a wide range of appropriate linguistic devices to strengthen the impact of their speech. Most adapted their writing very effectively to the demands of the form of a speech for a classroom debate, and there were, on occasion, some interesting 4 of 5

5 comments in parenthesis to give the examiner an idea of how the speech might have been delivered! Where candidates struggled, they often shifted from one side of the argument to the other, thereby leaving the reader confused by the thrust of their speech. To take one view and follow it through consistently is potentially a more reliable strategy than attempting to embrace multiple points of view. Technical skills are, on the whole, very good for many candidates. Whilst sentence demarcation and issues with agreement or Standard English can be a problem for some, the vast majority are able to use varied sentences and some exciting structures for effect. Spelling is generally good, with most candidates showing they can spell at least some complex words. Many candidates writing at foundation level manage to write whole pieces with only the occasional slip in spelling, which is brilliant. The apostrophe is still alive and well and often to be found in the correct place. 80% of candidates achieved more than half marks on the writing questions, which must focus centres attention on the comparable figures for Q3 and Q4 where only 31% and 12% of candidates respectively gained more than half marks. It would seem, however, that with the judicious selection and teaching of very specific skills, centres could have a significant impact on candidates results in future November series. 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 5 of 5