GCSE EXAMINERS' REPORTS ENGLISH AND ENGLISH LITERATURE SUMMER 2010

Statistical Information The Examiners' Report may refer in general terms to statistical outcomes. Statistical information on candidates' performances in all examination components (whether internally or externally assessed) is provided when results are issued. As well as the marks achieved by individual candidates, the following information can be obtained from these printouts: For each component: the maximum mark, aggregation factor, mean mark and standard deviation of marks obtained by all candidates entered for the examination. For the subject or option: the total entry and the lowest mark needed for the award of each grade. Annual Statistical Report Other information on a centre basis is provided when results are issued. The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC.

1

ENGLISH

General Certificate of Secondary Education Summer 2010

Chief Examiners: Chair of Examiners - Mr. B.J.D. Childs, formerly Deputy Headteacher, Ysgol Gyfun Dyffryn Taf, Whitland;

Higher Tier Papers 1 & 2 - Dr. K.C. Elliott, formerly Head of

Humanities, Wigan and Leigh College; Foundation Tier Papers 1 & 2 - Mr. E. Snell, Adviser, Wakefield

LEA; Coursework - Mr. S.H. Sage, formerly Assistant Headteacher,

Holywell High School, Flintshire; Speaking and Listening - Mrs. J. Hingley, formerly teacher of

English, Tredegar Comprehensive School. WRITTEN COURSEWORK (ENGLISH AND ENGLISH LITERATURE) In this, the penultimate Coursework report on the legacy Specification, I shall comment on the year’s findings as usual and make some comments on the new Specification which, for most centres, will be taught from September 2010 onwards. Administration The entry patterns for GCSE English and GCSE English Literature have changed over the last few years. Many centres are now regarding each of the subjects as one-year courses with early entry in Year 10 or in November of Year 11. This means that the established pattern of all candidates being entered in the Summer of Year 11 has largely disappeared particularly in the English centres. We are also finding that students are being encouraged to resit one or more elements within the course. In the current Specification this can create problems since moderators are not always sure about who is attempting each Specification. It is important when submitting class lists with the sample folders that it is made clear exactly who is entered for what. A number of Heads of Department already enclose a note or letter on this issue and this is an approach to be encouraged. If students have already attempted one of the Specifications, it is important that the requirements for single entry are met. This means that in, for example, a Literature only entry there should be a supervised and a handwritten piece. This year we found that this was not always the case. Also if part of a folder is resubmitted for moderation, any scaling already applied should be recognised in the new marks. When the new Specification comes into force, there will be no opportunity for the dual entered assignment and the problem will disappear.

2

It is a little dispiriting that issues I have raised over the years have still not been addressed by some centres. It is particularly worrying when administrative problems have been pointed out in individual reports and the same problem occurs the following year. The checklist of activities sheet, which accompanies the moderator’s introductory letter, has sorted out some of the perennial problems but others seem to be obdurate. They are as follows:

• Using ‘split’ marks when assessing Reading and Literature essays. The split mark is reserved for the Writing tasks.

• Not sending sufficient folders. Ideally there should be three folders from each teacher in the sample even if this means going beyond the requirements noted on the ‘Selection of folders’ instructions.

• Not sending class lists. • Late dispatch of folders. All moderators accept that sometimes outside influences

and events prevent a centre from fulfilling the requirement to send the folders by the deadline but if this necessary it is important that the Board and the moderator are informed.

• Not filling in the total entry box on the E1/EL1 sample marksheet. • Inaccurate arithmetic in the addition of marks. • Lack of a clear indication of tasks. It is not helpful if the moderator has to guess at

the assignment title. • Not noting the supervised piece on the coversheet. • Lack of in-text and summative commentary on the work. This is a requirement of the

Board. • The use of polypackets which delay the moderation process. A treasury tag is the

most convenient way of securing a student’s work. Having said this, the majority get the administrative aspects correct year-on-year and to them the moderators offer their thanks. We all appreciate that it is a complicated and, to be frank, rather tedious business getting all the administrative aspects in order. When they are, the moderators are most grateful. Assignments As in the past, some students presented extremely lengthy pieces of work. While this is admirable in many ways, there is some merit in being succinct. Often such work was loaded with non-essential ingredients like biographical and unnecessary socio-historic material. When the new Specification begins with its tight time frame, students would be well advised to avoid such approaches. Some of the extremely lengthy responses resulted from all-embracing Reading and Literature titles where the student was expected to cover a large area of text. Generally speaking, task setting was sound throughout the entry with only a few occasions where students had been faced with assignments that were either too big or too obscure. It is particularly distressing when a less able student is given an assignment which he or she has little hope of accessing. This can be true for the most able too. Even a bright student faced with the task of comparing Hamlet and Othello as tragic heroes is likely to be out-faced. On the other hand, some clever students were given material which hardly taxed their intellects at all. This issue will not disappear when the new Specification comes into being since, in the GCSE English Different Cultures Prose and the GCSE English Language Extended text essays, teachers will have a fair degree of autonomy in their choice of texts from the GCSE English Literature set text lists.

3

Worksheets remain a problem in a number of centres. There were occasions this year when near identical work was submitted from centres where the students had been encouraged to ‘fill in the blanks’. As I have noted before, the people who are most damaged by this approach are the students themselves who have unwittingly been led to believe that this is all that is required of them. The reduction in marks on these occasions can be very severe indeed. In the new Specifications, students will only be allowed to take in one side of their own notes when attempting their Controlled Assessment tasks and these notes must not include a plan or draft so hopefully this problem will disappear. Poetry comparison still remains a problem for students. Very often the comparative aspect of the essays was reduced to a personal preference. It is perfectly acceptable for students to state which poem they enjoyed the most but high marks only come from stylistic comparison. English Folder: Wales version It is always pleasing to see examples of Welsh Relevance work appearing in the folders. This year there was more ambition in the poetry chosen with Owen Sheers (whose novel Resistance appears in the new Specifications GCSE English Literature set text list) receiving some attention. His work is accessible and inviting to students and it was clear where he had been studied that the students enjoyed the experience. The same was true of more established poets (in GCSE English terms) like Gillian Clarke, Dylan and RS Thomas, Jenny Sullivan, Christine Evans, Sheenagh Pugh, Tony Curtis and Harri Jones. In the Welsh Relevance section it was nearly always poetry chosen to represent the culture. Drama texts included the well-established Under Milk Wood and Frank Vickery’s The Drag Factor. English Folder: England version Romeo and Juliet still rules securely in this section of the folder with tasks almost always on particular scenes including Act I scene i, Act I scene v, Act III scene i and Act III scene v. Most tasks centred on dramatic tension or relationships. There is always the danger with this type of task that students will give a narrative based response and it must be remembered that to gain a good grade the language must be analysed. The best approach to a task based on ‘tension’ or ‘dramatic effect’ is to look at how such effects are created rather than tracking through the scene line by line. In the past, I have commented on the ‘blame’ task which virtually always leads to a low level response where the various characters’ parts in the drama are rehearsed. It is still the case that very few students acknowledge that the protagonists themselves must bear some of the responsibility for their own fates. Occasionally, tasks set were not at all helpful to the students. For example, some of them were asked ‘To what extent is Romeo and Juliet the greatest love story ever told?’ This presumes a detailed knowledge of other love stories and the ability to make complex comparisons upon a basis that is unclear. Elsewhere, as in the past, it was obvious that the students were more reliant on Luhrmann’s film than Shakespeare’s text. Perhaps this is understandable since it does bring at least the story powerfully alive to the students but essays must be based firmly on the drama rather than the film. Directorial tasks (‘How would you stage this section of the play?’) always led the students away from analysing language and should be avoided. Macbeth was the second most studied play and there was evidence that it is regaining popularity. As with Romeo and Juliet, most students centred on a single scene, usually Act I scene vii or the Banquet scene. Understandably ‘power’ and ‘ambition’ frequently featured in task titles and there was a welcome return to the analysis of Lady Macbeth’s character.

4

Otherwise there was little new to report. Othello, Much Ado about Nothing, Julius Caesar, The Taming of the Shrew, Henry V and The Tempest all appeared in the work of the students but it was my overall impression that there was rather less keenness to study more remote texts. In the new Specification for the GCSE English (England only) and GCSE English Literature Controlled Assessment task linking a Shakespeare play with Heritage poetry, centres are free to choose their own texts (with a slight limitation in the Literature folders) and it will be interesting to see if the two existing favourites still hold their popularity. In the Different Cultures poetry section there were very few new combinations offered though it is pleasing that some centres are looking at linkings I have recommended in the past (for example, Kate Daniel’s War Photograph and Carol Ann Duffy’s War Photographer). A sizeable majority of centres still use poetry from the AQA anthology and it is pleasing that most centres have considered my note of caution regarding the usefulness of some of those poems. There were still occasions when students struggled to say something about Half-Caste and Unrelated incidents but happily these poems are not now so frequently used. They simply do not give the able student much to write about. Frost, Lochhead, and Heaney still remain very popular and for good reason. It is still the case that in some centres the central aspect of comparison was cultural identity. This I believe to be unhelpful since it leads the student away from looking at the artistic achievement and into peripheral issues. The aspect of poetry criticism which worried moderators the most both here and in the Pre-1914 section of the Literature folder was the apparent obsession with ‘structure’ and ‘punctuation’. Many students spent far too long counting full stops and lines and making a big comparative deal out of the fact that one poem had six verses (or more usually ‘paragraphs’) and the other had seven. Rhyme schemes also came in for a great deal of unwarranted attention as did image spotting and establishing which poem used alliteration and personification and which did not. This is fairly arid territory unless the student makes a clear point about the actual way in which the poet uses these devices and why she or he does so. This aspect will be covered in more detail in the autumn round of insets since it has an importance within the folder requirements for the new Specification. Narrative/expressive writing Messages relayed in previous general reports and insets seem to be getting through to many centres. In this section of the folder students are always most impressive when they write about something that they know about. Since very few indeed will have witnessed supernatural events in haunted houses or extreme violence they are well advised to leave such matters to others. For example, the current interest in vampires led to some rather blood drenched narratives that were neither engaging nor realistic. On the other hand, there were plenty of examples where students, carefully guided, produced amazing pieces of narrative which were often both moving and powerful. It was often the case that the work within whole centres was good in this section with even the most limited students producing interesting stories. This suggests very good teaching. It was also the case that in some centres the leaning to ‘genre’ writing or rather too free an approach led to a series of rather unimpressive pieces. As has been said many times in the past, the safest ground is personal experience, perhaps embellished a little, but absolutely grounded in emotions and situations with which the student is familiar. However, the fairly common task ‘A life in the Day’ often led to rather bland recitals of activities without very much of the character of the writer appearing. Very often the most impressive work in this section comes from mature students in FE colleges who accept that their best chance of success in this part of the folder is to be honest about their own experiences. Obviously, such students have more to write about being older and more mature but I would be surprised if all students did not have some aspect of their own lives upon which to base a piece of writing.

5

As I have pointed out in the past, write-ons and stories based on literature or historical events (e.g. the sinking of the Titanic or the First World War trenches) generally do the students few favours. Apart from stifling individuality, they prevent the student from accessing some aspects of the assessment criteria. As always in this section, the SSPS aspect let some students down badly and in others it was disguised by the use of spell and grammar checkers. In the new Specifications Controlled Assessment, students will not be allowed access to such aids (a QCDA ruling applying to all examination Boards) and I suspect that this will have an effect on the marks for this aspect. Analytic/persuasive Writing Centres are finding more inventive ways of approaching this part of the folder and it is most pleasing to see that many now adopt local or centre issues as the basis for the letter, report, speech and so on. Topics are not difficult to find if students are motivated to examine critically their environment both within and outside the centre. This year I enjoyed tasks on how to tackle truancy, how to improve school discipline and the siting of a prison in the community. Well-handled, these tasks and those like them allow the student ownership of the material and this always results in sharper, more focused work. Happily, the incidence of students writing about capital punishment (abolished in Britain long before virtually all candidates were born), euthanasia, abortion and vivisection is reduced. Most of such work is heavily reliant on external sources, often only partly digested, and on a number of occasions leads to charges of plagiarism. I was also pleased to see fewer letters/speeches about boxing and Derek Bentley. I suspect the former topic, based on an examination paper set some years ago, is of very limited interest to most students and the latter topic always leads to highly derivative work. Film reviews still feature in the work of some centres and, as in the past, a number have resulted in students losing the marks for their entire folder because they have been plagiarised. They are best avoided. As I have pointed out in past reports, analyses of the opening of a film or advertisements are completely unsuitable for this section of the folder. Leaflets too are often problematic since they do not allow the student to write sufficient continuous prose to display skills. English Literature In the Pre-1914 poetry section the McAuley/Rossetti combination was less popular and there has been a revival of interest in Dulce et decorum Est and The Charge of the Light Brigade. It is generally the case that students produced better work in this section of the dual folder and this year was no exception especially when the students had chosen fairly empty poems in the Different Cultures section. There was a good variety of verse chosen including works by Donne, Shakespeare, Browning, Tennyson, and Marvell. Prose Besides the fairly commonly used Great Expectations task on Pip and Magwitch, other Dickens’ texts are now becoming quite common. Oliver Twist featured this year with a concentration on the relationship between Sykes and Nancy and Hard Times made an appearance with work on Gradgrind. David Copperfield’s relationship with Mr Murdstone provided an interesting and different task for some students. Otherwise short stories from Guy de Maupassant, Kate Chopin, Roald Dahl, Thomas Hardy, Edgar Allan Poe and Charlotte Perkins Gilman all engaged the interests of the students. Task setting in this section of the folder is much better than it used to be and now students are less likely to fall into the trap of narrative driven work.

6

Assessment As usual it was necessary to scale a number of centres. Scaling of a centre only occurs when two moderators have seen the folders and after consultation with the Subject Officer. As in the past, the main reason for generosity in the Reading and Literature sections is the over-rewarding of narrative driven responses. To gain high marks it is essential that the distinctive language of the text is considered. Many students feel surface details or the content of the text is sufficient. Of course, for some students this will be the limit of their range but for those aspiring to C plus grades, there needs to be more. Brevity was also a problem. A student who writes only a page or so on a complex piece of literature is unlikely to score highly. On the other hand, some students write at excessive length and here the criterion of ‘selection’ is ignored. This aspect will become more critical when the Controlled Assessment regulations come into force. There is in most centres a clear indication of how the internal cross moderation process has been accomplished and this is very reassuring for moderators. It is, however, helpful when marks are altered if some reason is given for the change. Oral assessments prove still to be worrying. Some centres give the essential full student specific justifications but in a number of cases it was necessary to ask centres for more information. In order to avoid the inevitable delay this results in, it is important that teachers write full notes on the student’s achievements based on the Reading assessment criteria. Moderators find it very worrying when an orally assessed piece is two or three grades higher than a written piece. This type of disparity is extremely unlikely since the assessment criteria are common to both assessment approaches. In the new Specifications the option of oral assessment will not be allowed. Moderators are still worried when they see commentary on work which is not justified by the student’s performance. When a student simply quotes a section of the text and is complimented on his or her ‘analysis of language’ then clearly the assessment criteria have not been fully understood. On other occasions, students are rewarded for writing about ‘style’ when they have simply pointed out a stylistic characteristic without actually analysing its effect. For example, in one folder this year a student wrote: ‘Hitcher also uses enjambment to create an effect and to make the structure look neat and tidy.’ The marker had noted that this showed a good understanding of style. Since this is going to be an issue in the new Specification Reading and Literature Controlled Assessment, it will be something considered in the autumn round of insets. As always, however, the assessment in most centres is accurate and fair and considerable efforts are made by many teachers and heads of department to ensure that students gain the marks they deserve. For this they must be congratulated and thanked.

7

SPEAKING AND LISTENING Administration The first part of the process of moderation is contacting the schools. This is done in October, and centres are then required to forward E3 forms giving details of activities. This initial process has, once again, been fraught with difficulties for many of the Advisory Moderators, requiring numerous telephone calls, e-mails and letters to gain a response. That the E3 form had to be downloaded from the WJEC website appeared to cause problems for some centres. Arranging visits is also a perennial problem, exacerbated this year by the bad weather. Despite correspondence regarding proposed dates and confirmation of visits, there have again been occasions when a moderator has arrived at a centre for a scheduled visit to find that no arrangements have been made. Record keeping is generally much improved with considerable consistency in most departments. However, there are still centres that claim to be unable to provide records for inspection on the day of the visit, or only provide a small sample, which is often incomplete. In some centres there is still no consistent method of record keeping. These administrative problems involve a disproportionate amount of time to resolve. Once again, there has been a range of candidates involved in the moderation process. An increasing number of centres ‘showcase’ only their best students, rather than look at a wider range in order to establish clear standards across the centre. The use of Year 9 candidates is not helpful as the candidates seen should be the cohort being entered for the examination that year. It is particularly helpful to moderators if candidates can be identified by the use of name tags. Assignments Many moderators commented that there was a shift away from purely literary tasks this year. Consequently, candidates of all abilities have been able to get a proper purchase on what is expected of them and so everyone has been involved. There have still been cases where candidates have only been involved in a single activity and also of an unrealistic number of candidates being presented for assessment. Re-visiting tasks which had been completed previously still arises, with the consequent lack of spontaneity and some lack of enthusiasm. However, these cases have been few and far between, with most centres anxious to provide material that enables candidates to engage with the task. The following tasks have been highlighted by moderators as successful: Individual extended contribution:

• The Dinner Guest - students explained and explored in depth who they would most like to invite for dinner, from any time or place.

• A budding racing driver making a pitch for sponsorship.

• Iconic images for the last Decade.

• A pitch to provide funding for a new film.

• Monologue delivered by themselves when they are old and looking back on their lives.

8

• You have been invited to speak to the Head and panel of architects responsible for redesigning the school - which is to be totally rebuilt. They are seeking student involvement in the design process, in particular with regard to social spaces and facilities. Deliver a presentation of your proposals with the aim of persuading them to implement your suggestions.

Group discussion and interaction:

• Discussion on whether celebrities are too highly paid.

• Setting up a Wildlife Park, with decisions being made on how to allocate funds and

space.

• How to live on £10 a week.

• Re-branding your town/city.

• Organising a school Anniversary event/Prom.

• Planning a theme park for the area.

• Pitches by groups for support for a range of charities which were then discussed by a panel who were to recommend adoption of one of the charities by the school.

• Discuss what makes a good English teacher and come up with five key questions to ask in an interview for a new teacher.

• Invent a new Little Miss… and Mr Man to appeal to a modern audience and make a presentation to a prospective publisher.

• Discussion using the minutes from a previous school council meeting including possible changes suggested by various representatives. These issues to be discussed and rated high priority/quite important/not a priority. Justify the choices and make a presentation to the Head Teacher and Governors.

• Discussion of how sixth form students can be role models to younger students.

• Discussion on proposals to merge two existing schools.

Drama focused activity:

• A continuation scene of An Inspector Calls where a ‘real’ Inspector calls to follow up a complaint made by the Birlings about the previous Inspector who visited them.

• A monologue in role as the daughter in the short story Your Shoes by Michele

Roberts. • Extra scenes/conversations using characters from To Kill a Mockingbird.

Conversations between Jem and Atticus after the trial scene and between Jem and Dill at the end of the novel both worked well.

• Drama piece exploring family attitudes to marriage in the students’ culture. • Islanders anticipating the oncoming storm - based on Heaney’s The Storm.

9

• Taking on roles at a public meeting concerning the building of a new bypass/opening a new nightclub/ opening a MacDonald’s outlet next to the school.

• A ‘Jeremy Kyle’ show based around the protagonists from The Seduction. (This was

with a group of very able students.) • In role as the Head Teacher and Head of a TV company at an open evening for

parents to discuss the possibility of the school being part of an ongoing ‘reality’ TV broadcast. This was preceded by group discussion on the pros and cons of the project.

There were also some examples of tasks that were not successful:

• Curley’s wife ‘chatting’ about her time on the ranch. • Use of PowerPoint which included script and was simply read (often with the back to

the audience.) • The death of George (an extension to Of Mice and Men not written by Steinbeck.) • Discussion of poems focusing solely on rhyme, rhythm, flow and other technical

devices rather than the content of the poem and its effect on the reader. • Reading of prepared speeches on topics that had been ‘researched’ leaving the

student unable to answer any questions. • Discussion of Paper 2 material which involved a disproportionate amount of time

reading the material. Assessment Moderators were generally in agreement with both the rank order and the marks awarded at the time of the visit - and there was less evidence of prior knowledge of the candidates influencing the judgement of teachers. Use of the criteria was widespread and was also in evidence in the records. It was good to see the development of record keeping with greater input from pupils through self and peer evaluation. Internal moderation and standardisation is still varied, with most centres using the DVD as the benchmark. Some centres have a programme of rolling visits to classes; others have a dedicated Speaking and Listening day; others rely on ad hoc visits. This is still the area of most concern for schools and colleges, with dedicated time for internal moderation at a premium. Moderators commented that most centres are working hard to get assessments right. It is reassuring that standards are consistently applied and that Speaking and Listening is not a bolt-on activity but integral to work in the classroom.

10

FOUNDATION TIER WRITTEN PAPERS I hope that centres familiar with Foundation Tier papers will have felt that the material and questions in this year’s papers looked straightforward and contained few, if any, surprises. As I reported last year, there seems to have been more attention paid to time management and the number of candidates who fail to tackle all questions on the papers continues to fall, though it is always disappointing to see able candidates with incomplete papers. There was much to enjoy in the marking of this year’s papers and it was pleasing to see the sheer hard work put in by so many candidates. PAPER ONE Section A The extract appeared to be engaging for most candidates, who found themselves in the familiar world of school, and with a teacher who was not to be trifled with. As the narrative unfolded and the children’s view of the fearsome Miss Snell changed somewhat, their concern about whether their class would have a Christmas party became central. The extract ended at the point where it became clear that, despite there being no party, Miss Snell had “turned out all right in the end” by providing each of the children in her class with a small gift. This token present was enough to allow the children to feel they had something to brag about to their friends in the other class, who had the more easy-going Mrs Cleary as their teacher. Though the passage lacked the drama of last year’s paper, candidates had plenty to keep them interested and many wanted to offer their views about Miss Snell and her methods of teaching, even when this took them beyond the scope of the question.

11

A1 The opening section of the passage introduced the formidable Miss Snell, a junior school teacher whose reputation went before her. It was not difficult to see that the initial picture presented of Miss Snell was not a positive one and there was lots of evidence to support this. The question asked candidates for their first impressions of the teacher, and careful tracking of the text provided good candidates with more than enough material to shape responses that gained high marks. From the opening sentence of the passage it was clear that Miss Snell was a teacher not to be trifled with; the new children were “warned about her” and many candidates repeated the warnings given to the new pupils: “Boy, you’re gonna get it” or “that Snell – you better watch out”. Some candidates noted that Mrs Cleary’s class were the “luckier class” or that the “anxiety level of Miss Snell’s class was high even before school began.”. Some candidates also noted that one impression gained of her seemed to be that she wanted children to be scared of her, because of the way “she did little” to present herself in a more pleasant light. A point made in previous reports but worth repeating again here, is that candidates who work methodically through the text are much more likely to be successful than those who ‘stab’ at the text, collecting some reward but producing responses that overall tend to be rather limited. Some candidates unwisely ignored the opening paragraph completely, focusing instead on one or two details from the second paragraph in their opening responses. There was, of course, plenty of material in this paragraph that supported a negative view of the teacher, and good candidates were quick to link their comments about her with the appropriate textual details. Having already commented on her fearsome reputation, many candidates noted that the paragraph gave a number of negative impressions of her: she was old, “probably sixty”, but also rather unattractive because she was “a woman with a man’s face”. She also seemed to smell unusual, of “pencil shavings and chalk dust”. There was greater reward for those candidates who worked to offer a range of impressions than those who relied on copying large chunks of text out, sometimes two or three sentences. Selecting from the text that she was “strict and humourless” brought some reward, but more able candidates tried to offer examples of her strict behaviour, often neatly linking their comments to specific behaviour. Lots of candidates saw that she seemed to be very impatient with children, criticising them for every minor misdemeanour such as their “mumbling” or “daydreaming”, whilst others noted her eagle eye, instantly spotting those who were not working. For some candidates, this was a sign of an effective teacher, pushing her pupils to high levels of achievement; for others, the impression of an unpleasant, rather scary teacher was confirmed by the way she would “snap” at the children. Whilst there was plenty of material to make use of, it did demand careful reading; some candidates misread some of the details and believed it was Miss Snell herself who was making frequent trips to the toilet! The final two paragraphs of the section offered one or two new impressions about Miss Snell, and more able candidates offered views about the way she embarrassed her pupils, giving them “long lectures” about bringing the correct equipment. The fact that she “seemed to have no favourites” was viewed by some candidates as a good thing, the impression being that she treated all of her pupils equally unpleasantly, though a good number were outraged by the way she made Alice Johnson cry, confirming their view that she was a bully as well as unpleasant. The question itself will have been a familiar one to many candidates and it was clear that they had carefully structured their responses so that ‘impressions’ were always the focus of their responses. Some candidates chose to bullet point their responses - indeed, some did this for the first three questions - but generally this is not an approach to be recommended as it frequently led to undeveloped responses, and in the weakest examples, responses were little more than a chunk of text frequently with just the briefest of comments. They rarely achieved the highest marks, whilst those who tracked carefully and used the text sparingly but regularly to support what they said often scored excellent marks and got themselves off to a very good start.

12

A2 This question, which asked about the children’s thoughts and feelings about Miss Snell, was all about positioning. I saw many candidates who began their responses: “My thoughts and feelings about Miss Snell are...” and unless they realised their error, they found it very difficult to get back on track. Those who focused correctly on the question realised that in this section of text, the pupils in Miss Snell’s class found themselves in a difficult situation. The opening section of text provided a picture of a hard, unforgiving teacher who ruled her class with a rod of iron. Here, however, a rather different picture of her emerged, and the children tried to respond positively to this softer, more caring side of her character that she presents to them. The opening sentence in this section of text provided, in some ways, an overview of their attitude towards her now: they “could not hate her” because she did try to show she wanted to get to know them. The writer says that the children saw “she was sometimes nice in an awkward way”. Good candidates tried to explore these points, seeing that it put the children in a rather difficult situation, especially when Miss Snell uncharacteristically talks about “making friends with all of you”. Candidates who tried to probe this recognised that although this probably made the children like her rather more, they also found what she said to them embarrassing or disturbing, as it was not the kind of thing they would expect from Miss Snell. However, many saw that it did have an effect of making the children feel loyal towards her, or at least, defensive about her, and “with a vague sense of responsibility towards her”. Selecting these details - or the right quotations - brought its reward but especially so for those prepared to wrestle with what this suggested about the children’s feelings towards her. Weaker candidates unfortunately tended to focus instead on Miss Snell and how she appeared to have changed, or contented themselves with just quoting all of her talk to the class. Good candidates saw that the children were puzzled by her behaviour towards them, or that it made them feel awkward, especially when they were asked by the other children how bad it was being in her class; many used the final sentence from lines 30/31: ‘“Well, not too bad,” they would say uncomfortably, and try to change the subject.’ as evidence of how they felt about her. The children didn’t want to be drawn into criticising her but it nevertheless gave them some awkward moments. Some candidates saw that the defence of Miss Snell was also seen in the incident when John Gerhardt is told about Mrs Cleary’s class’s visit to the Museum of Natural History, but tries to show that he really isn’t bothered about such a trip. He implies that his time in Miss Snell’s class is time better spent - “I go to school to work.”, which again some candidates saw as evidence of his defence of Miss Snell. Where candidates focused clearly on the children’s thoughts and feelings, and tracked the text, they found plenty of material to shape their responses around, but there were too many candidates who either mis-read the question or allowed their answers to drift from the correct focus. Alarming too, were the responses that focused on the wrong section of text; for these candidates there could be no reward, and the advice to section off each part of the text to avoid such disasters is worth reminding candidates about, even if they have heard it many times before! A3 This question invited careful tracking of the lines, and as with a similar question in last year’s paper, high marks could be accumulated by the sensible selection of details, a focus on specific word choices by the writer, and where appropriate, comments about what the children think, say and do. The bullet points were there to guide candidates so that they were clear about how to gain reward, but it was not necessary to shape the answer into three sub-sections, although some candidates chose to do it that way. The easiest way of approaching this question was simply to work methodically through the text, noting the details as they appeared and linking comments where this was helpful or clarified a particular point.

13

From the first few lines of the section of text, the writer talks about the children’s rising anxiety about the unchanged state of Miss Snell’s classroom, especially the comparison with other parts of the school which “became more thickly decorated with Christmas trimmings”. Miss Snell’s classroom was bare, though some suggested the “grubby red letters spelling ‘Merry Christmas’ over the blackboard” was even more telling evidence of a lack of Christmas spirit. Many recognised that the children had become even more anxious as it approached the final week of the term “and there was still no sign of a party”. As with the previous questions, the best candidates used short details from the text, sometimes just a single word or two, to telling effect, and indicating close reading skills. The tension individual children feel about the Christmas party is shown when John Gerhardt is questioned by Freddy Taylor about the chances of them having a party. His reply, “sure, prob’ly” and the comment “though in fact he wasn’t sure at all” was picked up by many candidates as evidence of the concern surrounding the party. Some candidates simply quoted lines 51 and 52, though where candidates took the opportunity to break this down and comment on each detail separately, there was often greater reward. The fact that “Miss Snell had said or hinted nothing whatever about a Christmas party” had their comments to pupils in other classes even more guarded, and when Grace asks the two boys directly, they are evasive and what they say is said “nervously”. Good candidates were able to select the little, telling details, some commenting on the way the writer had italicised the word “tell” in John’s response to Grace. It was not difficult to suggest that Howard felt awkward and worried because he says nothing and scuffs his shoes “in embarrassment”. Where candidates took the trouble to isolate each little detail, they gained greater reward, other candidates simply quoting the whole sentence. Those who read less carefully here became confused by Grace’s response to the boys, suggesting the boys had no need to worry as Miss Snell always had a big party on the last day. Though this was not a particularly complex or demanding text, it did need careful reading and some candidates were too content with a rapid surface read that sometimes provided incorrect details or led them to incorrect assumptions. Candidates gained reward for noting the way John was “trying to sound convincing” and for commenting that this just provided more proof of their underlying concern. Other details such as the way John searches for support from Howard in a rather desperate attempt to convince himself earned reward, as did recognising that Howard himself was “uneasy about it too”. There were lots of small details for candidates to focus on and good candidates gained high marks here, especially if they adopted the careful, line-by-line approach to this type of question advocated in many recent reports.

14

A4 Writing a diary entry has been a task used on a number of occasions and invites the candidates to show their understanding of what has happened, but more importantly, how the character reacts and feels about the events. In addition, good candidates can often ‘capture the voice’ of the character, showing very clearly how they viewed and responded to the events. In past papers, the task often demanded that candidates ranged over the whole text, which sometimes produced overly long responses that were not always well-focused, so there has been a move to ask candidates to explore a specific part of the text but where appropriate, make reference to other parts of the text. In this case, candidates wrote the diary of a boy in Miss Snell’s class following the last day of term. The bullet points were guides to the areas expected to be covered and most candidates were able to show a basic understanding of the events of the final day, though it was disappointing to read responses that suggested Miss Snell had thrown a grand party to rival anything Elton John might have done! For a mark in the middle band of marks, there was an expectation that there was a competent tracking of events and some sense of John’s feelings changing from the expectation that it would be a normal working day to feelings of surprise and possibly delight that Miss Snell had provided a small gift for each child. More able candidates were able to weave details from the whole text into their response and particularly captured his feelings of relief that she had done something “to prove she was human after all”. Others went on to explore how he would behave with the Taylor twins, who had caused him so much anxiety, some talking of his ‘bragging rights’ as he intended to show off the toy soldier on the way home. The best responses focused on how he felt at different points during the day and included some of the details from the text, such as the time before the class entered the room and the mood that pervaded the class in the corridor. These good responses also explored his response to the whole day very thoughtfully, and whilst less secure candidates declared Miss Snell to now be the most fantastic teacher one could ever wish to have, more sensitive observers offered more realistic assessments, recognising that though she might not be the most wonderful teacher in the world, she did have a pleasant side. The candidate who summed her up by saying, “well, she might not be Mrs Cleary but I guess she wasn’t so bad for a teacher” captured exactly how John might now view her.

15

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. B1 After the slightly disappointing responses to last year’s task, there were some engaging and lively responses to this year’s task, ‘Describe the scene at a children’s birthday party’. The weakest responses tended to be first person accounts of ‘the day I went to a birthday party’ that were too frequently just a thin list of events but with little description. There were also some candidates who worked doggedly through the five senses, giving each one a paragraph but producing rather tired and unconvincing responses. Better candidates saw that there was a wealth of detail that could be captured in a page of writing and this included a focus on the children and the adults who were at the party, the food and the activities. For many, there was an obligatory bouncy castle and visiting clown, though there were also much grander affairs that took place in a variety of locations. The best pieces captured something of the energy and excitement of the occasion, but moved confidently from a general picture of what was happening into more closely observed detail, ‘zooming in’ in specific details and developing a focus on a small number of key moments: the lighting of the birthday cake, the opening of the presents or the final moments of `pass the parcel`. There were some engaging and often amusing cameos of the harassed mother, or the girl who wouldn’t join in and these brought the scenes to life, giving an authentic feel to the writing; the ability to focus on individuals was often at the heart of the best writing. At times, less secure writers were unwisely tempted into over-exaggeration, where food fights or general mayhem became the substitute for careful description. Candidates on both tiers often produce writing where content is better than technical accuracy and as one-third of the marks are awarded for this aspect of the work, this is an area where greater focus is still needed. There remain too many candidates who gain good marks for the quality of their content but are let down by basic errors of punctuation, spelling and sentence construction. Descriptive writing often suffers from `verbless` sentences and simple mistakes, and for some candidates, this continues to make a significant difference in their overall marks. B2 It is pleasing to report that the huge majority of candidates now seem to manage their time well enough on this paper to complete all reading and writing tasks, and I personally saw few scripts that had whole questions missing. That said, some of the B2 responses were fairly brief and for those pushing for good marks, there is an expectation that narrative pieces will be fairly well sustained. Those pieces that struggle to complete one side are rarely convincing and though quality is always more important than quantity, candidates should be attempting to write something close to two sides. As was noted in the Higher Tier report, it is important that candidates shape their narratives to the title chosen; there were examples reported by examiners that some narratives had little or no connection with the title and this made it difficult to reward the piece highly.

16

(a) The Wedding

This was often a good choice for Foundation Tier candidates, with many pieces clearly drawing on personal experience of attending a wedding. Many were engaging personal accounts of events in their own family and these often captured the excitement and drama of the ‘big day’. Some weaker writers tried to cover every aspect of the day, from early morning to midnight or beyond, and produced list-like responses that lacked the colour and authenticity of more focused responses, but generally this was a safe choice and often produced good results. In addition to the personal accounts, some chose to be more adventurous, with third person narratives that had complicated plots and tales or revenge. To be successful, these narratives needed careful planning and development of character; at times they were too ambitious and became entirely event-driven with too little attention paid to the central characters, but on occasions there were stories that had good pace and development and were very enjoyable to read.

(b) Write about a time when you won something.

As with ‘The Wedding’, many candidates found themselves on safe ground and were able to offer personal accounts that were often lively and convincing. Some of the best pieces were accounts of events in primary school or early childhood and where the accounts were carefully time-limited, there were pieces that effectively captured not just the events but the writer’s feelings too. Occasionally, weaker writers resorted to writing about a series of events, so that in one example the examiner was taken through every round of a football competition before the writer’s team reached the cup final, each paragraph being a virtual re-run of the previous one, but where candidates focused on a single event, they often produced engaging writing.

(c) Some days can only get better.

Most candidates who chose this option opted for a first-person narrative but only those who had a clear structure and shape seemed to manage this successfully, with too many accounts being little more than a list of fairly unconvincing minor disasters that ran from early morning until late at night. Rather more convincing were those that focused on a central event that was developed in some detail. It was clear that a little planning had helped some candidates, whilst others seemed to have plunged into their accounts with little idea of the day’s outcome, and some seemingly unconnected events that all led to it being a day better forgotten.

(d) The Time of My Life

Candidates who chose this option were most successful if they focused on a single incident and used their time to build and develop the one incident. Some unwisely chose to write about a whole series of events which made for some unconvincing reading. In some ways, this was the most `open` choice, where almost any successful or pleasant incident could have been written about, so it was at times disappointing to see candidates choosing this but then struggling to write convincingly.

17

(e) ..and he knew he had made it.

Many centres are cautious about recommending this type of narrative choice to candidates as they are usually dependent on some careful planning of the events that lead up to the final sentence of the story. However, this particular ending offered so many possibilities that many of the candidates who chose this were able to construct narratives that worked quite neatly. Many candidates worked hard to create an interesting central character and situation and although stories of personal courage or success in sports tended to be the ones most frequently attempted, there were also some engaging tales of journeys and even science-fiction tales of aliens journeying to Earth. Perhaps because of the finality of the ending, many sensibly wrote within a short time-frame and this gave the tales both pace and shape, and there were some very enjoyable narratives.

PAPER TWO Section A The materials in this year’s paper should have looked familiar in style and format to those used in previous years, and the questions too followed the format of previous exams, so there should have been nothing to shock or surprise well-prepared candidates. The newspaper article about Simon Woodroffe and his views about encouraging risk-taking among children seemed to chime neatly with the Outward Bound brochure that offered courses designed to put children in unfamiliar situations to build and develop the kinds of personal qualities that Simon Woodroffe had argued are important to develop. A1 This should have been a familiar ‘search and find’ exercise and the many candidates who worked methodically through the text comfortably found ten facts about Simon Woodroffe. They collected some facts from the first paragraph, for example, that he was a leading businessman, had founded the Yo Sushi restaurant chain, and that he was a judge on ‘Dragon’s Den’. In some parts of the text, facts came thick and fast: in the third paragraph it was revealed that he is 56, was awarded the OBE in 2006 and is patron of the Go4It awards. Later on in the article, readers learn that Woodroffe left school at 16, with no qualifications and had spent 30 years in the entertainment industry. Candidates may have been interested to know he had been a lighting technician for Led Zeppelin and had helped to stage the Live Aid concert in 1985. There were a number of other facts about him in the article and for many, this question gave them a sound start to the paper. However, some candidates found themselves tangled up with facts about him and the opinions he gave on a range of topics and never successfully sorted out the facts from his opinions. This led to some poor marks for a question that most achieved high marks for. This is a question that over recent years has been tackled much more successfully and most candidates now sensibly list or bullet point their responses, rather than giving unnecessarily complex responses. It is the one question across the two papers that is sensibly tackled by using bullet points or simply listing and I am aware that many centres suggest candidates should try to include an extra point as ‘insurance’ should there be any incorrect answer in their responses. As ever, well-prepared candidates got off to a good start.

18

A2 This five mark question, in contrast to the focus on facts in A1, focused specifically on Woodroffe’s opinions about risk-taking and danger. Although there were plenty of details that earned reward, it was important to tease out the key points in Woodroffe’s argument and some weaker candidates just contented themselves with offerings of long chunks of quotation in the hope that something they had written would be rewarded. Other candidates probed the text more carefully with some recognising that as a simple overview, Woodroffe believes that risk-taking in general is a good thing and that children should be encouraged to take risks. He then goes on to say more specifically that unless risk-taking is encouraged and there is some exposure to danger, children will become “cotton wool kids”, expecting to be looked after at every turn. He specifically cites the importance of taking risks as preparation for survival in the modern business world, and then goes on to express despair that schools are less willing than ever to provide opportunities for children to do this. He believes that risk-taking and exposure to danger develops a “bold and confident nation” and that it teaches children about how to protect themselves. Finally, he refuses to view failure as a result of risk-taking in a negative way because “he had not been afraid to fail and neither should children”. Most candidates were able to pick up some marks on this question but it did require some careful reading and selection to gain full marks. Often, long quotations were unhelpful and the best candidates selected just the key detail or point that would earn them reward. A3 In this question, candidates had to select evidence that indicated children are too protected from risk and danger nowadays. This evidence had to be collected from different parts of the text and whilst it was relatively easy to find some bits of evidence, it needed a careful and thorough reading to accumulate full marks. From the early part of the article, readers are told that some schools were no longer taking pupils on challenging activities like canoeing or camping, and later on in the article we are told of pupils being refused permission to travel to London to collect a Go4It award because the journey was deemed “too risky”. Evidence about over-zealous protection of pupils from danger was given in the details about schools banning conkers and snowball fights and even judging backstroke in swimming to be too dangerous to be allowed. Other pieces of evidence came in the final paragraph where a Children’s Society survey showed that children were allowed less freedom to wander from their back door than was the case in 1970 and also reported a significant reduction in the proportion of primary age children who make the journey between home and school on their own. The proportion of candidates gaining four or five marks for this question was relatively low and it seemed to have provided quite a stiff test for many.

19

A4 In turning their attention to the Outward Bound brochure, it was important that candidates were clear about what they were being asked to do in the question. It was not an invitation to tell examiners why they liked the brochure or even why they would like to attend an Outward Bound course, it was focused very specifically on the way the brochure tried to persuade readers that the courses they ran developed a number of important skills and abilities in young people. Weaker candidates sometimes failed to tackle the actual question but instead offered some general points about why it was a good brochure. Some of these candidates drifted into rather vague comments about the size of the font or how the text “made you want to read on” but rarely touched on the way the courses prepared young people for their futures. For those who were more focused, there was a wealth of material to probe, and good candidates had no shortage of detail, including words and phrases from the text that they could comment upon. For example, right from the first part of the text, the charity talked of “unlocking potential”, of raising young people’s “self-esteem” and providing courses that would help them “face their future with confidence”. The brochure talked about helping young people “take control…of their own lives” and helping them to find out “just how special they are”. The brochure used the words of the founder, Kurt Hahn and gave a detailed account of the ways in which the courses helped its participants, suggesting outcomes that included “increased self-awareness, improved concentration, more enthusiasm to learn” and so on. The brochure made use of quotations from participants and teachers to suggest the claims made were true and that a range of personal qualities would be developed during the courses on offer. The brochure also made use of some photographs and drawings showing young people working together or tackling challenging activities as individuals. The key to success in this question was keeping a focus on the question, selecting appropriate material and then linking comments to the selected material. There were some responses that showed candidates able to select and ‘spot’ appropriate material but they then struggled to comment effectively, keeping their work in the middle band of marks. The best responses were often quite long and detailed as they ranged over different parts of the brochure but most importantly, these responses effectively linked comment to the evidence of the text. They kept a clear focus on the way the brochure promoted the development of skills and abilities through their courses and there were some impressive answers among more able candidates. A5 The final question in this section, where candidates have to use both texts, demands a clarity of approach in order to avoid a jumble of detail that examiners find hard to disentangle and reward. In this year’s question, candidates had to give five examples from each text of the personal qualities important for young people to have or to develop. They were invited to organise their answer in two paragraphs but some ignored this and presented examiners with an answer that was often problematic to deal with, especially where the details were not always linked to a specific text. Some candidates, especially those who had tackled A4 successfully, found it a straightforward job to identify qualities noted in the Outward Bound text: self-esteem and confidence; improved concentration; a willingness to try new things; determination to succeed; respect and compassion for others and so on. It was, perhaps, a little more demanding when working on the newspaper article but in truth there were lots of possible correct responses for those who were prepared to track the text carefully: developing a willingness to take risks; the ability to push themselves; developing boldness and independence, along with a competitive spirit and determination to succeed among them. Unlike A4, this question did not demand an especially long response; indeed, the more focused that candidates were on identifying the examples of personal qualities tended to mean quite short answers, but ones that were packed with the appropriate details. Some weak responses relied too heavily on quotations, often leading to a lack of clarity about which qualities were being identified and even though examiners tried to be generous, a jumble of quotation did not lead to a high mark. As with other questions on this paper, examiners rewarded a wide range of marks but those that were well organised were usually the most effective, and as the Higher Tier report notes, in terms of length of response, it was often the case that “less is more in this type of question”.

20

Section B The two writing tasks in this year’s exam, a formal letter and an article for a specific audience, should have presented no real problems. In some cases candidates made use of material from the reading section when they wrote their letters and most candidates had plenty to say about music, fashion and films when they tackled B2. B1 This formal letter, in this case to a known recipient, gave candidates the opportunity to shape a viewpoint and develop their support or opposition to the proposal that all students should participate in an outdoor activities week every year as part of their school curriculum. Opinion about participating in such a venture was fairly equally divided among candidates but those who gained good marks provided clear arguments for their views and the best developed their points of view well with occasional touches of rhetoric. There were, inevitably, some weak responses that in some cases lacked any organisation into letter format, and these were often brief with very little development of an argument to support a viewpoint. Occasionally, candidates wrote letters that tried to argue both for and against the proposal and this tended to produce rather weak and unconvincing responses. Stronger responses showed a clear sense of who they were writing to and the need for a more formal register. Often these responses were organised into paragraphs with topic sentences that gave a clarity to the arguments being put forward, and in many cases the arguments benefited from an attempt to develop a point of view with additional details or statistics to support their case. Often those supporting a week of outdoor activities used the reading material to talk about the gains in confidence and self-esteem to be made from camping, whilst those with opposing views complained about the lack of any choice in the matter and the damage it would do to those who would rather spend their time revising or preparing for important exams. In some cases, letters drifted into discussions about health and safety aspects of such a trip, and some were determined to provide detailed costings of equipment and transport to suggest such a trip was too expensive; the current recession was often cited as making such a trip impossible to contemplate. The best pieces engaged well with the task and were often close to two sides long as they worked to support or oppose the decision. As with writing in Paper 1, technical accuracy at times affected the overall mark adversely and sometimes was a striking contrast to good content. B2 Higher Tier candidates also tackled this task and many of the features highlighted in the Higher Tier report were also seen in Foundation Tier candidates’ work. The notion of ‘trends’ seemed to confuse some candidates and, as with Higher Tier candidates, there were a significant number of responses that tended towards reviews of specific films, music performances or fashion shops rather than articles about trends in more general terms, though some candidates were comfortable exploring, for example, the rise of 3D films or a particular style of clothing. Most candidates were very much in tune with their intended audience and much of the writing was lively. At times, examiners saw rather brief pieces of writing where content was limited, though engaging, and it was difficult to reward these short pieces of work very highly. Because Foundation Tier candidates had the opportunity to range over music, film and fashion, some wrote only very briefly about each one, whilst others tried to focus on one area in a more sustained way, and this was often a more successful approach. Occasionally, weak writers drifted away from the task entirely but most were at least able to offer a view about a particular film or pop/rock star and at their best, examiners were richly entertained by lively articles that were informative as well as sometimes being provocative. In conclusion, it is pleasing to report the hard work and effort seen in this year’s examination papers. Foundation Tier candidates do not always find the pressure of examinations easy to cope with but the huge majority of candidates approached these papers seriously and with considerable effort and determination to do the best they possibly could, and as ever, there was much for the examiners to enjoy.

21

HIGHER TIER WRITTEN PAPERS It is never my intention to add to the test faced by the candidates by trying to catch them out with unpredictable questions and this year’s papers held no surprises for those candidates who had a clear idea of what was expected of them. The papers followed a familiar pattern and, as usual, most of the candidates made a genuine attempt to show what they could do in the time available. PAPER ONE Section A This year’s extract was not quite as light in mood as the ‘Bertie’ extract last year, but it was humorous in its way and it was certainly an intriguing narrative with a mysterious and slightly sinister central character and an unlikely hero who came to his rescue. The narrative had pace, and dramatic action in the form of a violent confrontation, and there was more than enough going on to keep most readers interested. A1 This was a relatively straightforward question and a methodical, detailed approach brought a good reward. Weaker answers tended to be unselective and relied on wholesale copying but the good answers showed understanding in their clarity and coherence and in their willingness to ‘disentangle’ the text. The obvious point to make was that the man was late because he got himself ‘lost’. However, the narrative explained that he felt as if everything was ‘conspiring’ against him in ‘unforeseen’ ways and that his careful plans were going wrong as if fate had it in for him. Specifically, he got stuck in traffic jam for two hours on the A1 and that seemed to be only the beginning of a series of mishaps, which included ‘going adrift’ in a one-way system in the city of Edinburgh and being ‘thwarted’ by a burst water main which had closed a road. He had endured the steady and unforgiving rain on the way north and then missed a turning, finding himself in the ‘hordes’ of people attending the festival. He got into an ‘urban ravine’ with no obvious way out and had to drive cautiously and slowly because the cobbles were ‘slick and greasy’ and the streets were full of people who crossed ‘haphazardly’ or stood around in the middle of the road. A queue ‘snaked’ into the road, impeding his progress and, ultimately, making him late as he got caught in the festival crowds. Good answers put the relevant material together clearly and efficiently, taking the opportunity to get started with a relatively straightforward question to settle the nerves. A2 This was a very predictable type of question and the prompts were intended to help the candidates to focus on the relevant material in the text. The vital point was to use the detail of the text to reach a sense of the character and it was important to explore the implications of the surface detail. For example, the reader learns that the name on his driving licence was Paul Bradley but it was clearly not his real name and he had chosen it because it was ‘nicely forgettable’. The deeper responses noted the desire to be unobtrusive. He was described as being ‘several degrees of separation’ away from his real name and the reader was told that he liked ‘slipping between identities’. The inference here was that he hid his identity and changed it regularly and the more thoughtful began to consider why he would do this. The mysterious nature of the character was emphasised by the way he tried not to draw attention to himself by seeming ‘an ordinary guy’ with an ordinary car and an ordinary job.

22

He had strong feelings about a certain type of person such as the ‘charmless’ guy he almost hit and he ‘loathed’ and despised him, wondering if the parents were proud of the job they had done in raising him. Many candidates commented on the ‘judgemental’ or ‘prejudiced’ nature of this character and his tendency to ‘stereotype’ people. When the accident happened, he seemed to assess the situation quickly and confidently, making swift judgements about the driver and his dog. He also had no concerns about the dog as he was confident that he knew how to kill dogs. This shocked some of the candidates and they were appalled by the matter-of-fact ruthlessness. At this point in the story the thoughtful readers really began to get the measure of the character and there were some rather sinister aspects to his personality. He seemed cool and self-contained but also hard and unemotional, quietly assured about his ability to handle himself and deal with confrontation. Some candidates felt he was quite a scary, sinister character and there was certainly something mysterious about him. A3 This was also a very predictable type of question and, again, the bullet points in the question offered a structure and a way in for the candidates. Some of the weaker answers offered ‘formulaic’ responses, trying to argue that the dramatic impact of this part of the story depended on the mystical power of punctuation or the equally elusive significance of sentence length. Those who tried to find drama in sentence length were divided in their opinions. Some were convinced that ‘short sentences’ were the key, but others were just as convinced that it was ‘long sentences’ which set the pulse racing. One candidate solved the problem by claiming that sentences were of ‘average length’. I was particularly taken by the suggestion that the writer ‘uses a sentence structure which will cause panic’. However, another, rather innovative, candidate took this issue to another level by suggesting that the drama of the piece depended on the use of ‘short words’. Answers which are ‘theoretical’ rather than based in a close reading of the text make very little progress and it is not helpful to produce ‘lists’ of allegedly significant words with neither context nor comment. The best answers track the sequence of events, paying attention to any interesting words or phrases, and relate what they select to the question. The clue really is in the question and here the candidates needed to follow the way the writer built up the drama of this violent confrontation. Some candidates noticed that at first Paul Bradley simply went to the back of the car to inspect the damage, and that he did not seem to want to cause any trouble. However, the drama built almost immediately as the Honda driver was aggressive. Paul tried to think of something to calm the man down but the other driver was ‘a pressure cooker waiting to explode’. The use of italics emphasised that he was ‘wanting’ to explode. There was a real sense of mounting violence here. He was clearly spoiling for a fight as he bounced on his feet and he was also an intimidating opponent. He was described as ‘out of condition’ but also like a ‘heavyweight boxer’. Even at this stage, Paul tried not to be provocative, adopting a ‘neutral stance’ and a ‘neutral expression’ but the drama intensified when he noticed that a baseball bat had appeared in the man’s hand.

23

Interestingly, the writer did not describe the attack in detail and the action moved quickly to Paul regaining consciousness and finding himself ‘sprawled’ on the pavement. The attack was perhaps not unexpected but it was sudden and very violent. Paul was caught by surprise and stunned by the force of the blow which ‘cracked’ him on the head. The Honda driver then smashed the windows of Paul’s car as he tried, ‘unsuccessfully’, to ‘struggle’ to his feet. The fact that he could only manage to get to a kneeling position showed how badly he had been hurt and the description of him being as if ‘at prayer’ suggested just how vulnerable he was. He was at the mercy of his assailant who was now advancing with the baseball bat in his hand. There was no doubt about his intentions and Paul’s helplessness was clear as he felt ‘dizzy’ when he raised his arm to defend himself and sank back on to the cobbles. He seemed convinced that he was about to die and had ‘actually given up’, resigning himself to his fate, when there was an unexpected intervention from someone in the crowd. The stranger threw ‘something black and square’ at the Honda driver and sent him ‘reeling’. The good answers tracked the detail very thoroughly but they also saw the way in which a minor accident developed into a murderous confrontation in which a violent death was only prevented by the dramatic intervention of a stranger in the crowd. A4 The last section of the story introduced the character of Martin and the question invited a fairly straightforward personal response to this most unlikely of heroes. The obvious impression of Martin was that he was not a violent man at all. Indeed he was not even brave in any way. The text made it clear that he had never done anything like this before and that he did not even kill flies. He has never used violence in his life. However, he admitted that this probably had more to do with ‘cowardice’ than any pacifist principles. The fact that he was fifty perhaps suggested that he was rather old to be getting involved in violent situations and his reluctance to get involved was also suggested by the fact that he had waited for someone else to intervene. However, he was appalled by what he was seeing and did not share the crowd’s enthusiasm for this ‘brutal piece of theatre’ as he realised that the man was going to die unless someone did something. However, his decision to save the victim was ‘instinctive’ and perhaps created an impression of impulsiveness. He was a rather inept man of action who could not aim or catch and his fear of retribution was clear as he hid in the crowd and closed his eyes as he had done at school in an attempt to escape bullying by clinging to an ‘ancient, desperate magic’. He showed apparently genuine concern for the victim of the attack and many candidates felt that he was a decent man and in his way a brave man to do something so out of character and so obviously risky. I wondered what the candidates would make of this character but I was pleasantly surprised by the number of really thoughtful, detailed responses Section B One of the pleasures of marking this paper is the creative writing which some of the candidates produce. In the cauldron of an examination they often write remarkably well. However, some examiners did comment on the discrepancy between the performances in reading and writing, and the alarming lapses in technical accuracy in writing. There is no easy or quick solution to this problem but many candidates would do well to remember that a significant proportion of the marks in writing are awarded for technical control.

24

B1 I mentioned last year that the descriptive writing task had been disappointing, mainly because too many candidates ignored the question and slipped into first-person narrative. There were some candidates who made that mistake but generally this task was tackled with more success than last year. The weaker responses tended to exaggerate wildly or produce unconvincing generalisations but there were plenty of well-observed pieces of writing which evoked an authentic picture of a children’s party. Of course, these days such events take place in a variety of locations and only a few strained credulity. The details of the decorations, the presents and the food offered plenty of relevant material and very few parties seemed to be lacking the bouncy castle in the garden. Above all, a focus on the behaviour of individual children, and adults, produced good results. Too much emphasis on appearance and clothes can become very monotonous but an eye for the actions and body language of people rarely disappoints. B2 This is the only question on either paper where the candidates have choice and the key messages from last year’s report still apply. It is not helpful to rush into an unplanned narrative and, although the story has to fit the title, it usually is obvious when the candidates have given some thought to the stories they want to tell. The titles deliberately offer flexibility and allow some room for interpretation. (a) The Wedding

This title was specific but it offered a good opportunity to write from personal observation. Many responses were clearly based on personal experience of attending a wedding but there were also opportunities to show a sense of humour or imagination. Weddings are serious occasions but they can clearly be amusing and, if some candidates are to be believed, highly dramatic. Many of the responses were very straightforward accounts of a wedding, and some were clearly inspired by romantic, wishful thinking. However, some adopted a detached, sardonic perspective, while others tried hard to inject some narrative interest. There were plenty of tales of jilted brides and grooms and quite a few former husbands and wives put in an appearance at the wedding. The number of children who attended their parents’ wedding was perhaps a revealing comment on modern life!

(b) Write about a time when you won something.

This was obviously a first-person narrative but it gave plenty of room for interpretation. Some candidates could not resist the financial dream of a win on the lottery but there were also plenty of sporting victories, some of which seemed to be recording moments of authentic, personal triumph. A few candidates went for the less obvious, but entirely valid, interpretation and wrote about winning the affections of their object of desire.

25

(c) Some days can only get better.

This was a very ‘open’ title and it was possible to write a first or third person narrative about a day when things went wrong. It was a popular title but I was surprised at how few of the candidates managed to construct a convincing response. The implication of the title was clearly to write about a day of disaster but there were problems with tenses and chronology. Some of the narratives were sprawling efforts and others were simply unconvincing.

(d) The Time of My Life

This was not intended to inspire relentlessly detailed autobiography, or even self-indulgent introspection, but rather to encourage a focus on a particularly rewarding moment in the writer’s life. Inspired by a well-known song, this title offered so many possibilities but the outcomes were often very disappointing. Many of the candidates who chose this option seemed to have a conceptual problem with the title and just did not know where to go with it. Any experience which was memorable for the right reasons would have worked here.

(e) ..and he knew he had made it.

The conventional wisdom is that ‘endings’ are difficult to structure and should be approached with caution. However, this ending offered a range of possible ideas, particularly for those who wanted to write action stories. There were some examples of ‘crash landings’ but there were also some very good war stories and tales of endurance and epic journeys. Some candidates have very strange ideas of what is involved in a climb to the top of Everest but a lot of the responses were good.

PAPER TWO Section A It seemed an appropriate time to pay a small tribute to a particularly successful, and recently retired, Welsh sportsman, particularly as the character which emerged from the material seemed interesting and quite complex. This resource material was really about the personality of Joe Calzaghe, and his relationship with his father, rather than about the sport of boxing and that made it quite accessible. A1 As last year, it was possible to use only the first column of the newspaper article by Celia Dodd to answer the opening question and this undoubtedly made it easier for the candidates. They only had to focus on a limited area of the text and there was a wealth of detail about the relationship between the two men. I think it is a good idea to track through the text, marking the relevant evidence and thinking about the impressions created by those details. This technique can mean that the candidates only need to read the text once, and it works in both papers.

26

The text told us that father and son have been together as boxer and trainer since Joe was nine years old and live near each other in the Welsh valleys. The impression of them being close was fairly obvious but it was also made clear that they have ‘huge bust ups’ and the relationship was fiery and argumentative. Joe admitted that as a teenager he ‘hated’ his father and resented being ‘pushed’ in training. He wanted to go out with girls and have a drink. He would ‘rebel’ and threaten to quit boxing because of his father’s ambition and drive but Enzo knew how far to push him and Joe would soon be asking for a lift to the gym. They are both ‘moody’ and things can ‘kick off’ quickly between them. They can argue about ‘tiny things’ but they do not hold grudges and the arguments are quickly forgotten. They keep the ‘personal’ and the ‘professional’ separate but they are also sensitive, emotional men. When Joe was tempted to sack Enzo as his coach, the criticism was ‘ripping him up’ but Enzo told him to do what was best for him. On the other hand, Joe showed his respect for his father and stayed with him. The impressions which emerged from this relationship were quite complex. There was passion and intensity but also sensitivity and genuine closeness. It was presented as a relationship which had never gone smoothly, but was full of emotion and strong feelings. The very best answers used words such as ‘volatile’ and ‘turbulent’ to describe the relationship. A2 This question used a quotation from the article which claimed that Joe Calzaghe was ‘not what you might expect’ and asked how the rest of Celia Dodd’s piece tried to show that he was not a stereotypical boxer. It was slightly unusual in that the emphasis was more on the facts, examples and evidence used by the writer rather than identifying techniques. However, that made the question less demanding for some candidates and a willingness to hunt down the relevant points brought a good reward. As the article explored the character of Joe Calzaghe, some aspects of his character and behaviour conformed to the ‘tough guy’ image of boxers but it was quite clear that in many ways they did not and he contradicted the stereotype. The candidates simply had to evaluate what they were told about Joe against a notion of what you might expect from a boxer and a lot of this was driven by the content and the totally surprising nature of what we learned about him. For example, the writer claimed that he ‘doesn’t look like a boxer’ and cited the lack of a broken nose and the fact that Joe is ‘tall and slim’ rather than ‘muscle-bound.’ He admitted to being vain - a surprising trait in a boxer - and the silver earring and the shades perhaps suggested a pop or movie star more than a boxer. Joe was said to be proud that he has only ‘one visible scar’ and insists that he won’t ‘run to flab’. The lack of ‘damage’ was unexpected in a man who has fought so many times but perhaps justified the vanity. It was surprising to be told that a professional boxer does not train with weights and for someone who has to be in peak condition and supremely fit it was most unexpected that he ‘binge eats’ the forbidden foods such as cakes, crisps and beer. Unlike some other well-known boxers, the remarkably successful Joe Calzaghe shuns the ‘celebrity circuit’ and has no entourage following him around to ‘big him up’ or feed his ego. He also avoids the ‘gimmicky showmanship’ which seems almost compulsory for most famous boxers. His refusal to model underwear was seen by some as evidence of his modesty but others decided that it was more to do with a surprising respect for his girlfriend’s wishes. The article eventually made it clear that Calzaghe is shy, again a surprising trait in a professional fighter. However, Celia Dodd kept the best until last and those who persevered with the article came upon the unexpected claims that Calzaghe is so afraid of flying that he has to take medication to control his fear. Amazingly, he was bullied at school and became introverted and depressed. I was not alone in feeling a sense of astonishment that anyone would be insane enough to bully Joe Calzaghe! Some argued that it was surprising that, unlike his own father, he did not encourage his sons to follow him into boxing when it had been ‘his life’. He has no desire to see his sons being ‘bashed about’.

27

A3 Attention now turned to Enzo Calzaghe’s interview and the focus was on his view of his son. Enzo clearly gave the impression that Joe was a very special talent. He claimed that he was ‘class’ even as a child and that he pushed him hard precisely because he was not ‘run of the mill’. Enzo suggests he could not let Joe lead a ‘normal’ life because he thought there was something ‘unique’ about his son. The impression was also given that Joe just wanted to be a ‘normal kid’ and ‘needed to be pushed’. However, he also gave the impression that as a boxer Joe had an aggressive, almost murderous streak in his personality, describing him as a ‘psycho’ in the gym. He presented his son as changeable and moody. He claimed that Joe changed all the time and was ‘a chameleon’ and ‘a snake of different colours.’ Enzo suggested that Joe’s eyes can be ‘passionate’ but also ‘cold as ice’, giving the impression of a man who is emotional but also cold and perhaps calculating. Joe can be silent and withdrawn, not communicating in training. The claim that Joe can be ‘arrogant’ and ‘psyched up’ suggested that he has a high opinion of himself and he came across as a driven man. The key here was to see that Enzo was describing Joe as a fighter. Some candidates got confused here and felt that Enzo was presenting his son as mentally unstable! Enzo also gave the impression that Joe was not fully appreciated, insisting he was ‘too good for his own good’. However, the final and perhaps strongest impressions were of a man who was intensely close to his family and loyal to his father. Enzo claimed that he and Joe ‘love each other to bits’ and he stuck with his father as his coach. The weaker answers tended to lose sight of the wording of the question and simply offered evidence without drawing out the impressions. The weakest answers were almost entirely about Enzo. However, the best answers linked the evidence to the impressions clearly and purposefully. A4 Cross-referencing is a difficult skill but it is a requirement and, as I mentioned last year, it requires clarity of thought and some organisation. The bullet points and the instruction to organise the answer into paragraphs under the given headings do provide a framework and it was sensible to avoid the chaotic, rambling approach, which is so difficult to reward. Sometimes less is more in this type of question and those who were focused and concise got their reward. The implication of asking for two paragraphs in a question worth ten marks should be quite obvious and it makes no sense to write excessively long answers. The essence of this question was simply to sort out what the two texts said about Enzo Calzaghe as a trainer and as a father. It made sense to identify where the material came from but the instruction was ‘to use information from both texts’ rather than explicitly compare or contrast. As a trainer, Enzo was clearly presented as inexperienced and, according to Celia Dodd’s article, had ‘never thrown a professional punch in his life’. Some thought Joe should get himself a ‘proper trainer’, clearly implying that Enzo was not a ‘proper trainer’. Enzo was described in the article as ‘a hard taskmaster’ but Joe was also quoted, saying he respected his father as a trainer. In the interview, Enzo admitted that he pushed his son hard but he claimed that he was confident in his ability as a trainer and never felt stressed or anxious. Despite the pressures, Enzo suggested he felt ‘rewarded’ as a trainer.

28

As a father, both texts agreed that Enzo loved his son and was close to him. Enzo insisted he was proud of his son and very ambitious for him, although he admitted that he could be hard on him and used the word ‘sadist’ to describe himself. The article agreed that Enzo wanted the best for his son but also suggested that he could be moody and fiery with ‘bust ups’ featuring prominently in their relationship. Section B The writing tasks gave the candidates every chance to show their skills and there was nothing to constrain them or force them into being too serious, or dull! The reward was that the writing was generally very engaging, very informative and a lot of fun. B1 This letter was informal but, as always, there was a topic to address and the candidates were invited to express their views on the possible decision of a friend or relative to take up the ‘noble art’ of boxing. It was perfectly possible to write seriously about this topic and there was plenty to say on both sides of the argument. However, those who were determined to show their sense of humour brought a sense of irony to the situation. This task certainly allowed some witty banter and those who had the skill and the courage to go for it produced some wonderfully entertaining writing. A tone of stunned disbelief worked very well indeed, and some of the responses to and from girls were very amusing indeed. The candidates were faced with making some quick decisions about viewpoint and tone but the key was to establish a clear and coherent stance. The safe, sensible approach was to argue for or against the decision. The best candidates could answer or deal with opposing viewpoints without descending into muddle or confusion but the weakest answers were those which stated a clear, even enthusiastic, viewpoint and then proceeded to undermine it completely. For example, one could only wonder what the friend or relative would make of a letter which gave total support for boxing as a ‘hobby’ but then went on to dwell at length on the broken noses, scarred faces and brain damage which would, apparently, be the inevitable consequences of such a decision. It was difficult to see how shedding a few pounds or meeting some new people could possibly be held in the balance with suffering permanent brain damage! Some candidates seemed to think that it was possible to make the leap from complete novice to professional boxer in a matter of a week or two and only a few knew about the safety equipment which amateur boxers are required to use. I did not expect specialist knowledge but a sense of reality certainly did help. B2 It was important to note that this question asked about ‘recent trends’ in music, fashion or film, as opposed to a review of an individual work. The audience was defined clearly and the best answers adapted style to audience very successfully. For many examiners this was a trip into a totally unfamiliar world but the candidates were very much at ease with the topic, if not always the exact task. A lot of answers adopted the style of the teenage magazine but produced a ‘gossip’ column rather than an article. Others seemed to be writing advertising copy for the major stores. Simple biography of pop or movie stars was not really appropriate here.

29

The best answers were informative but also opinionated and had a point of view to express. For example, the success of the ‘Twilight’ films or the rise of the ‘reality television’ pop star were both well documented but only the best candidates could stand back and reflect on, or evaluate, these trends. This task really did discriminate and those who had knowledge of the world around them and some sophistication in thought and expression were very easy to spot. In conclusion, these papers seemed to provide a fair test for the candidates and I hope that they did find the reading material and the writing questions interesting and even entertaining. As usual, I would like to express my appreciation of the hard work put in by teachers, examiners and, above all, the candidates.

30

ENGLISH LITERATURE

General Certificate of Secondary Education Summer 2010 Chair of Examiners: Jonathan Harrington, Teacher Training Coordinator, Brockenhurst

College, Brockenhurst, Hampshire; Chief Examiners: Specification A: Margaret Graham, formerly Head of English,

Ysgol Bryn Alyn, Wrexham; Specification B: Ken Welsh, formerly Head of English, Gateacre

Comprehensive School, Liverpool. SPECIFICATION A As this specification is drawing to a close, with only one more exam to go, examiners this year were once again impressed by the quality of responses on both tiers, with the majority of candidates writing with confidence and engagement on their set texts and the unseen poems. The skills evident will be transferable to the new specifications, so this report should be useful, not only for those reflecting on the performances of their students this year, but also for those planning their teaching of the new course. It was heartening to see messages from previous reports and meetings being taken on board, and there were fewer examples of time being mismanaged (the 20, 40, 20, 40, 30 guidelines often being noted on candidates’ scripts), and of extracts being sensibly contextualised, rather than being approached as if unseen (apart from the instances where they were, of which more later!) Another improvement was in candidates maintaining clear focus on the question, throughout their responses, as opposed to attempting to recycle pre-prepared material, although there was still some evidence of this with certain texts and questions. One area where work still has to be done is with candidates answering on the wrong texts. Often, but not always, they realise their error, after having had a good go at I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, but even minutes wasted on an unstudied text is time that could have been better spent on the questions on texts they have been prepared for. Occasionally, too, wilful candidates appeared to have chosen to answer on texts they had studied for coursework, usually Romeo and Juliet, but also, on a couple of occasions, other texts, including Silas Marner. Whilst it was gratifying to see that they had enjoyed these texts so much, they would probably have been well advised to choose the texts they had studied for the exam. Finally, some candidates answer questions in a different order from the way they are presented on the paper. Whilst this may work for some, for others, it can mean that they do not perform as well as they may have done had they followed the structure of the paper. For example, if the poem is tackled first, it can result in candidates being pushed for time when they come to the 20 mark drama essay question at the end of their exam, and if the essays are attempted before the extracts, it means that candidates have not been re-familiarised with their set text through the printed extract.

31

Finally, two of what are becoming perennial points: the decision about tier of entry, and the use of film versions of texts. With the former, it is more common to find apparently misplaced candidates on the Higher tier than the other way round. A handy rule of thumb for candidates who seem to be borderline, could be that if the candidate is the sort who needs more support, in the way of bullet points and so on, they may well be better placed on the Foundation tier, whilst if they can think on their feet and are confident writing at length, they should be comfortable on the Higher. As for film versions, what is important is that candidates can distinguish the film version from the written text. Indeed, in some, rare, instances, candidates referred to “in the film” making one wonder if they had even seen a copy of the text, let alone studied it in detail. Watching film versions can, of course, positively enhance the study of both prose and drama texts, but they should complement the reading of the text, and not be a substitute for it. To end this introduction on a positive note, responses to both of the unseen poems were particularly strong this year, with much less empty spotting, and with the majority of candidates accessing the subtext, even those who had apparently misread or over interpreted the poems. HIGHER TIER Section A While Of Mice and Men is by far and away the most frequently encountered text here, there was more evidence of other texts being studied, and successfully responded to, in greater quantities than in previous years. Apart from To Kill A Mockingbird, which, as usual, was the second most popular prose text, it was good to read engaged and well informed responses to Silas Marner and Pride and Prejudice, as well as the more contemporary titles, and to read responses to I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings from candidates who had actually studied it, as opposed to tackling it unseen. Furthermore, all texts had been studied by a range of abilities, highlighting how texts that may be perceived as being more suited to the most, or indeed, less, able can work equally well for candidates across the range. The candidates who wrote on I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings unseen, as usual, tended to do well on the extract, only revealing their error when they wrote, with great imagination, it must be conceded, of Momma taking Maya and Bailey to the seaside for the day, and the mischief the children got up to. The extract had a wealth of detail to be explored, and the most successful responses went beyond the general excitement, and discussed the shift in atmosphere created by the ominous description of the school as it “blazed without gaiety”, as well as details such as the evocative description of the “little children....like fireflies.” The Momma empathy question, apart from being the choice of most who were answering on the text unseen, also worked well for those who had studied the text, and what was pleasing was that candidates went beyond the early stages of the text, and included references to events later on, after the children had left Stamps. The second essay choice, on the significance of the title, also worked well. This is a text with a clearly strong appeal to, and lasting impact on, those who study it. Pride and Prejudice is also enjoyed by those who answer on it, perhaps because it may be taught by enthusiastic Austenites. Most candidates appreciated the presentation of Mrs. Bennet’s character, discussing the conflicting sensations of her embarrassment causing behaviour and the humour achieved by its effect. With the question on Mr. Bennet, some, perhaps over dependent on film versions, did not get far beyond his caustic wit, and his relationship with Elizabeth, but the best went on to write about his involvement in the Wickham business, and at least one candidate made a sound case for his failings in fatherhood. The question on “First Impressions” was successful, allowing candidates to range across the text, and some dealt with a number of first impressions, while others focused more closely on Elizabeth and Darcy, and some, validly, explained why the second choice of title was the better choice.

32

Another text taught by enthusiasts and enjoyed by candidates is Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha, and writing on it was engaged, informed, and empathetic. Candidates dealt well with the extract, showing an understanding of Paddy’s feelings and situation. Although the empathy task on Sinbad was well answered, the more popular choice of essay was the second option, where the suggested structure helped candidates produce thoughtful and well informed responses. It was good to see a significant increase in the number of candidates answering on Silas Marner. As is always the case with this novel, the extract was rich with opportunities for exploring language, and candidates worked well with it, as well as showing a sensitive understanding of its context. The best answers, for example, also picked up on the situation of Nancy, as in this candidate’s comment: Eliot makes you feel a little awkward intruding on this private family scene. Also, the use of irony, as we know that they had a chance to have a child but it passed the Red House just as swiftly as the wedding group, creates a strong sense of pathos in the reader. There were some lively and convincing recreations of Dolly Winthrop’s view of events, with, as always, the best using detail from across the whole of the novel. The family life question also elicited thoughtful and well informed responses, with the best answers going on to consider the language and imagery associated with the different families. Teachers still undecided about what texts to teach in Unit 2 of the new specifications could do worse than have a look at Silas Marner, as candidates of all abilities write with real warmth on it. The extract from To Kill A Mockingbird, the second most frequently studied prose text, worked well, as all could identify and write about the tension therein, with the better appreciating the effect of details such as the almost slow motion effect of the description of Atticus preparing the pen and paper, the juror leaning over the rail, and Scout’s viewpoint. Less successful responses were not quite clear about how Ewell was being received by others in the courtroom. As always, the best selected and highlighted apt detail from throughout the extract. For some reason, however, the extracts on To Kill A Mockingbird tend to elicit feature spotting, and this year some candidates became over distracted by identifying the metaphor “frog sticking without a light” or the tripling (!) “never, never, never”, at the expense of an overview of the whole extract. The essay question on Boo Radley was well done, with most linking him to the mockingbird motif and selecting his key moments, including his rescuing of the children at the end of the novel, as well as his earlier contact with the children. The second essay choice was also popular, and allowed candidates to focus aptly on various characters, with Dolphus Raymond and Mrs. Dubose featuring frequently, as well as the more central characters such as Atticus, Aunt Alexandra and Boo. The children’s visit to the black church was often referenced, too.

33

To say that Of Mice and Men is the most frequently studied prose text, although true, seems something of an understatement, such is its popularity, and it never fails to work with each new cohort of candidates. The extract elicited a range of responses, some more valid than others. Some perceived Curley’s wife as out to seduce Lennie, seeing her as a sort of siren, on account of her red ostrich feathers on her mules, and a generally nasty bit of work, but most saw that, even if manipulative, her loneliness was the driving force here, and astute readers focused on details such as her kneeling by Lennie as evidence of her getting down to his level, and showing, perhaps, some mothering instinct. Her reference to “mutts” was often commented on, too, most realising how it showed her cynicism, some linking it to her attitude to men, and members of “team Lennie” freshly angered that she did not understand the importance of the puppy to Lennie. The best answers recognised the complexities of her presentation here. The question on Crooks was popular, with many candidates using their discussion of his character as a starting point for widening their essay into how he represents key themes such as loneliness and the power of George and Lennie’s dream, as well as how he casts light on other characters and their relationships. Only a few thought that as he only appears briefly, he is not very important to the novel as a whole. The essay on “powerlessness” proved effective in encouraging candidates to think on their feet, and there were many well informed and thoughtful responses, with some agreeing completely, some disagreeing, claiming that all the characters have some power at one time or another, and others weighing the issues carefully, considering different types of power, and their manifestation in the novel. Some candidates interpreted the question as “power” in terms of “effective on the reader” and were affronted as they took the critic to task for thinking such a thing. As is always the case, such responses were judged according to the criteria, and the evidence of the knowledge and understanding of the text. As often happens, just as a text seems to be fading in popularity, and is dropped from the list, it has a last spurt of popularity, and this was the case with Stone Cold on the Higher tier this year, with some responses of the highest quality. Most candidates clearly grasped Shelter’s state of mind, and supported their answers with apt evidence, as a result of close reading, although a few could not get beyond his use of military terminology. There were some excellent evaluations of his chilling confidence and preparation, however. There are always some answers to Stone Cold that pay little or no attention to the final stages of the novel, and although this was less evident this year, there were still some who did not get beyond Gail’s replacing of Ginger, and missed her crucial role in saving Link’s life, and, with the second essay, concentrated on Link’s early experiences (sometimes with closer reference to the t.v. version than to the text) at the expense of exploring stylistic features such as Swindells’ use of the first person, stream of consciousness, the structure of the novel, and so on. Those who did address such points were well rewarded. Anita and Me continues to grow in popularity, albeit gradually. It is one of those texts where every page yields a promising extract, and the one this year worked well, with many candidates noting Meena’s conflicting feelings of mortification at being caught and annoyance at her humiliation. Close readers made good use of details such as houses nudging each other to support their judgements. Those who chose to write as Meena’s mother caught her voice well and some were really sensitive to her situation, showing an understanding of the context of the novel, too. The second essay choice, like the “powerless” one for Of Mice and Men, had candidates thinking on their feet, and there were some sensitive discussions of childhood experiences as presented in the novel - not just those of Meena, but also of Anita, Tracey, Robert, and others. A colleague, rightly,observed how this text is received with real insight and affection.

34

Section B When it comes to drama texts, An Inspector Calls is the most popular, but not in as clear cut a way as Of Mice and Men is in Section A. Under Milk Wood remains very much a minority choice, but all other texts were fairly represented, with A View From The Bridge and Blood Brothers being the second favourites. All three Shakespeare texts had their takers, and responses to Othello, in particular, are becoming more evident across the ability range. Hobson’s Choice continues to work well, too: candidates seem to really enjoy this play. Under Milk Wood is drawing to the end of its stint on the set text list, and will not be missed by many, it seems, judging from the very few who study it. Nevertheless, the extract worked well, allowing all candidates to track through the different scenarios, and the better to form an overview. Some, for example, highlighted the dreamy nature of the atmosphere, whilst others perceived it as hectic, and some explored the theme of time. Those who chose to answer Q. 9 (b) discussed various dreams and the everyday life highlighted in the play, with the better answers showing how the two intermingle in “a complex blend”), but the second essay was rather more frequently chosen, with candidates discussing loves present, absent, and unrequited. Some extended their discussion to explore the idea of love of community and place, which worked well too. This may be a minority choice but examiners specifically noted how candidates had evidently enjoyed writing on it, and no doubt, after its swan song next year, it will find a place elsewhere in departmental schemes of work. A View From The Bridge never fails to work, and is becoming an increasingly popular choice of drama text, across the ability range. Whilst the extract gave plenty for candidates to write about, some allowed their knowledge of later developments to colour their judgements, and detected a sinister subtext in every single word and action. The best, however, recognised that as this encounter is from near the start of the play, the indications of how the relationship may develop are very subtle signals of discomfort on both sides, and that a father figure commenting on the shortness of his ward’s skirt isn’t necessarily evidence of incestuous feelings. Q. 10 (b) proved a popular choice. Some responses spent too long on the earlier stages of their relationship, and had to skim over, or even omit, key moments such as the kisses, and the ending, but most wrote with sensitivity and assurance, and noted the irony that the more Eddie tries to control Catherine, the more she is driven into Rodolfo’s arms. The best advice to Beatrice was well rooted in the text, and would have been very helpful to an actor. Less successful was generic advice about costume and body language, with little reference to the text. With all responses, to all texts, candidates need to be aware of the marking criteria, and that detailed knowledge of the text is essential to allow access to grade C and above. Having said that, there were, however, some sensitive evaluations of her role, and noted that through her stability and sense of duty she acts as a moral touchstone, whilst also commenting on events and situations over which she has little, if any, control.

35

An Inspector Calls still is the most frequently studied text in this section, and there were interesting responses to the extract. Virtually all, if not all, candidates, appreciated its dramatic context, but there was a range of opinions on how an audience may react to Eric. Some candidates were affronted by anyone being rude to their mother, perhaps hoping to curry favour with the examiner, although most empathised with him until the revelation of his treatment of Eva. The best, as usual, read both dialogue and stage directions very closely, starting from his stance on the edge of the group of characters at the start of the extract, and making inferences from that, and going right to the end of the extract, exploring how the character’s dawning recognition of the consequences of his actions are reflected in his broken syntax. Some, however, were so intrigued by his drinking that they never got much further than that. The comments made on the question about giving advice to an actor playing Beatrice, apply equally to advice to an actor playing Sheila, I want you to use an expensive hankie to blow your nose, being an example of less useful advice. Messages in previous reports and meetings do seem to be getting through, however, and most candidates did support their advice with apt textual references. The best responses explored how, when and why she changes, and some went on to discuss how the character takes on part of the role of the Inspector, and may be used to reflect Priestley’s key messages. The question on keeping the interest of the audience caught some candidates on the hop, as it required them to think on their feet ( to continue the metaphor) but those who worked their way through the revelations noting how each would impact on an audience could get a fair way by that route; others analysed Priestley’s stagecraft, structure, use of irony, and so on. The best noted how the play’s coup de theatre at the very end maintains the interest of an audience, even on the way home! As one, evidently very engaged, candidate remarked, It couldn’t have been a bigger cliffhanger if you watched it on top of the Grand Canyon. The Merchant Of Venice is now probably the least popular of the three Shakespeare texts. The extract was recognised and discussed thoughtfully, in the main, many empathising with the couple, but others noting their less positive qualities, both of which were tenable interpretations. As is often the case with the Shakespeare extracts, closer focus on the language used and its effects would have been worthwhile in many cases. Shylock was almost always chosen as befitting of sympathy, in Q. 12 (b), with sound cases built for this. The question on justice gave plenty of scope for candidates to set their own agenda, and interesting and thoughtful responses emerged as a result, with the best considering the nature of justice received by a range of characters at the end of the play. Romeo and Juliet was relatively popular this year, including responses from candidates who appeared to base the whole of their response on a film version (usually Luhrmann) and from some who had decided on a whim to answer on it as they’d enjoyed it for coursework. More legitimate responses, however, were engaged and informed. Some saw the scene as funny, on occasions it seemed because of Capulet’s words, Ha, let me see her, but more often because this is how it is sometimes presented on stage and discussed in some editions of the text. The majority, however, saw the poignancy of Capulet’s words, and some explored the beautiful imagery of an untimely frost... On the other hand, the candidate who counted the number of exclamation marks may have been better served looking at words, too. One candidate remarked, I imagine this is how slow motion would have been done in Shakespeare’s time, which was an interesting idea. When it came to the essay, Benvolio was described by one perceptive candidate as basically, Romeo’s brain, while another said, no-one takes much notice of him even though he speaks sensibly. ‘Twas ever thus! As with the Crooks question for Of Mice and Men, candidates with a secure knowledge of the text were those who wrote best on this character, as both characters do not appear throughout their respective texts. Those who compared him with Mercutio and discussed his relationship with Romeo fared the best, whilst some noted that he is, effectively, the only one of the younger generation still to be alive at the end of the play. Just a few confused him with Balthazar. The question on love was the more popular of the two. Some focused pretty exclusively on the love between Romeo and Juliet, but others extended their response to consider different types of love.

36

There was a discernible increase in the number of responses to Othello, and candidates from across the ability range wrote with real engagement about the characters, in both the extract and the essay questions. There were some mature and insightful evaluations of Emilia’s character, although only the very best showed an appreciation of the complexities of her character. Some found this question helped them into Q. 14 (c), where the best responses considered all three women, Desdemona, Emilia and Bianca, with sensitivity and apt support from the text. Those who knew the text well were aptly equipped to discuss the character of Cassio, with the best responses showing an appreciation of his full significance, and of how his naivety contributes to the play’s events. Anyone who had doubts as to whether Othello could work successfully at this level would have their doubts assuaged were they to read a selection of responses from this year: candidates really respond well to the play, which they seem to see as being particularly relevant to contemporary life, as, of course, it is. Perhaps the fact that Baz Luhrmann has not yet made a film of it means that responses are relatively uncoloured by a specific interpretation. Hobson’s Choice is also a play, evidently taught by enthusiasts, that is positively relished by the vast majority of those who answer on it, and, as candidates seem to be particularly taken by the character of Maggie, they were well served this year. There seemed to be an admiration, albeit grudging, in some quarters, of her “bossiness”, as many termed it, and the extract proved a useful way in to both essay questions. The question about the balance of power particularly suited those who could move across the text with confidence, but those who tracked through the story managed well, too. Blood Brothers is increasingly popular on the Higher tier, and there were responses from across the ability range. What proved to be a discriminator with the extract was appreciation of the context, and the fact that the audience knows what is in the locket. Many picked up on the irony of Edward’s words at the end of the extract (those who follow the advice to always go to the end faring particularly well here) and, as is usually the case with extracts from this play, the stage directions proved a fruitful source of evidence for the creation of mood and atmosphere. The Mrs. Johnstone empathy question was a very popular choice for the essay, and some examiners believe it was the most successful empathy task ever, with candidates combining a convincing voice with apt detail from throughout the play. Only a few omitted events at the end of the play, and still fewer confused the character with Mrs. Lyons. Many, indeed, had a fine grasp of minor details, and were aptly rewarded. The second essay choice threw a few candidates, as with the similar question on An Inspector Calls, who could not think how to tackle it, and ended up writing more about the function of the Narrator. It is important that candidates are practised at selecting the essay choice that suits them best and have had experience of tackling a range of essay questions, so that they can respond to one that they may not have expected. Having said that, the fact that many candidates almost seemed to be working their way into responses on how the interest of an audience is held made for interesting and successful essays, many introducing their knowledge of the play’s key themes, and acknowledging the central point that, whilst an audience knows what happens, its attention is held as to how and why it happens. Indeed, some made the valid cross text connection with Romeo and Juliet, in order to illustrate their point.

37

Section C What was particularly pleasing about responses to Mary Oliver’s poem, The Summer Day, was that, even those not quite sure what a grasshopper is (some hedging their bets by referring to it as an animal, others more confidently deciding it was a horse, or, as one very assertive response declared, clearly a goat, whilst others decided it was a person flinging themselves out of the grass) and those who failed to look closely at some of the imagery, still caught the key message, by virtue of it being expressed so strongly at the end of the poem. There were, as usual, some very off beat ideas, such as the grasshopper representing a girlfriend eating sugar out of her boyfriend’s hand, and there was the by now customary war poem interpretation (a young soldier lying in a field contemplating his decision to sign up) but still the message emerged. The poem also allowed for a range of equally valid responses, so some felt the narrator was a child, while others speculated it was someone near the end of their life; some saw it as anti-religion; some saw it as religious. Although there was less fruitless spotting of stylistic features, this will never be completely eradicated, so there was still reference to the semantic field of grass, and to how the poem when turned on its side looks like a field. Even in such cases, however, the message managed to find its way through. A newish trend is for candidates to advise poets on how they could improve their works, such as the comment, I don’t think the poem is organised in a very good way because it is all packed into one paragraph, it would have been better in stanzas because you can then spot alliteration, repetition and similes. Perhaps not the most productive route to successful analysis, well meant as the advice doubtless was. The following comments, taken pretty much at random from a selection of scripts, will give a flavour of what some candidates made of the poem: In my opinion, ‘The Summer Day’ is a beautiful and complicated poem that describes clearly and creatively the wonder and beauty of life. In lines such as ‘Who made the swan and the black bear?’ I believe it showed the poet’s feelings of the life that’s around her and how clearly she sees the world with her poet’s eyes. I thoroughly enjoyed the poem and because I found it interesting, in turn found it easier to analyse. I liked the poem, I feel it gives an optimistic outlook on life to enjoy every moment and that’s exactly what I intend on doing, in fact I might leave this exam now. I think it was very funny to put this in an exam paper. After all, why give us a poem about how short and precious life is, in all its wonder, when I could be outside, having a ‘stroll through the fields’ or maybe playing in the summer sun? Ironic. The poem is highly relevant to a GCSE paper because it makes the student think about the work they’ve got to do for their GCSEs and how their grades may affect their life. I really was hoping for a good decent poem that shows proper purpose and subtext. I’m so pleased I have. This is almost a poem for life. I really liked this poem, and I hate poetry. It really is remarkable, and rather humbling, how at the end of a long exam, candidates still write with such confidence and engagement, and often with insight, sensitivity and creativity. It says much for the power of poetry, and for the way candidates have been prepared for the examination.

38

FOUNDATION TIER As on the Higher tier, in Section A, Of Mice and Men is by far and away the most popular text, although it was gratifying to see responses on all the texts, including Pride and Prejudice and Silas Marner. In some instances, these could well have been candidates where a late decision had been made about tier of entry, and the sort of support associated with questions on this tier is clearly enabling for some borderline candidates. In Section B, there is more of a spread of texts, with the pattern broadly following that on the Higher tier: An Inspector Calls is perhaps more popular at this level than has been the case in the past, and A View From The Bridge and Blood Brothers are the runners up. Section A There were few legitimate responses to I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, but some spirited unseen efforts - sometimes it is only when one reaches the essay does one realise that the candidate has in fact no idea what the story is about. The few who had studied it recognised the context of the extract and, as did those approaching it as an unseen, empathised with Maya, discussed the behaviour of the characters and showed an awareness of mood and atmosphere. Successful selection and highlighting of detail was the route to grade C, and there was plenty of opportunity for this in the extract. The empathy question on Momma allowed those tackling the text unseen to do a bit of creative writing, supported by some recycling of the extract, and those familiar with the text chose apt memories to write about, revealing an awareness of Momma’s character. The second essay, where attempted, sometimes was again pretty much a flight of fancy, albeit entertaining, but others made apt reference to the incident with Mr. Freeman, Maya’s visit to her father, and so on. Responses to Pride and Prejudice from candidates who had read the text were also relatively rare. Interestingly, those who tackled it unseen tended to get a lot out of the extract, as is also the case with I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, a testimony to the strength of the writing in both texts, as well to candidates’ preparation for English Paper 1. The extract from Pride and Prejudice was so rich in detail that there was plenty to write about for all. The Mr. Bennet question was the more popular of the two essay choices, and sometimes owed more to the film version than the written text, as was, perhaps, the case with the question about Wickham and Darcy, but both elicited engaged responses, with apt references to key points in the novel. Candidates who write on Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha really empathise with the sibling relationship between Paddy and Sinbad, and clearly grasped the situation in the extract. Q. 3 (c) was the more popular of the two essays, with mainly apt recollection of key incidents, while those who chose to write as Sinbad showed an awareness of the changing relationship between the brothers. The detail of the novel is well retained by candidates, and those prepared to write at length on recalled detail are well rewarded. Silas Marner, whilst not a frequent option for candidates on this tier, actually works well, as it has a strong and clear narrative and engaging, and, significantly, easily distinguishable characters. The extract elicited engaged responses, as did both essays. Candidates showed a clear sense of Dolly, and an awareness of important times in the relationship between Silas and Eppie, in their respective questions. There was a tendency to focus more on the earlier parts of the novel, perhaps, as, indeed, is often the case. With all texts, on both tiers, selecting key points from throughout the text is a useful skill for candidates to develop.

39

There seemed to be more responses to To Kill A Mockingbird on the Foundation tier than in previous years. With the extract, candidates were more confident when writing about Atticus, than when writing about Mr. Ewell, although some took appropriately strong exception to his arrogance and confidence, and expressed their satisfaction at his falling into Atticus’ trap. The essay choices seemed more or less equally popular. Candidates seemed well prepared for the question on Boo, and the bullet points were useful in pointing them in the right direction, but the second option, on walking “in someone’s skin” also elicited very thoughtful responses (as with similar, probably unanticipated questions on the Higher tier) perhaps because it forced candidates to think on their feet. Answers included the children’s encounters with Boo, Mrs. Dubose, Tom Robinson and Mayella Ewell. The extract from Of Mice and Men worked well at all levels of ability, from less able candidates making straightforward judgements of the characters, to those tracking through, selecting and commenting, with the best discussing really thoroughly and thoughtfully, focusing, for example, on the way Curley’s wife and Lennie move around one another, with her effectively blocking off his escape, and pinpointing where Curley’s wife changed her tactics. There was some misreading of the reference to Curley’s wife, “she cried”, with some believing this showed her distress at the death of the puppy, but this did not prevent some answers of real quality, which would have stood up well on the Higher tier. As is often the case with the characters in this novel, some were confused as to exactly who Crooks is, some confusing him with Candy and some with Slim (the horse connection probably the reason here), but the majority were able to make sensible points about Crooks and his role on the ranch, as well as his relationships with others, the bullet points having given them a useful lead. The best discussed Crooks’ attitude to Curley’s wife, with the best seeing his fear of her, although some thought that he, too, was attracted to her. The “no power” question was also popular, with none of the slight misreading of the question which sometimes occurred on the Higher tier, although some wrote about characters with power, such responses being credited for their knowledge and understanding of the text, nevertheless. Some thoughtful responses discussed characters who appeared at first to have power, but were proved not to by the events of the novel. Characters most often chosen were Curley’s wife, Lennie, and Crooks, with George, Curley and Slim sometimes used as examples of apparent and later disproved power. On both tiers, the boss, Curley’s father, was sometimes cited as the only one with any real power, but this stance left little room for discussion. Although the popularity of Stone Cold has rather faded, to be replaced, it appears, by Of Mice and Men, the novel continues to appeal to the still significant number who study it. Candidates were able to track through the extract in order to discuss Shelter’s character, and discuss it with what a colleague described as “relish fuelled by indignation.” The best answers looked closely at his use of language, and details such as his use of the cat as part of his cover, his rehearsal of his responses, his hesitation and general attitude towards the police. Candidates showed real engagement as they acknowledged his cunning but were appalled at his behaviour. There was similar engagement in the essays. Most who wrote about Gail recalled apt details and appreciated her role as a replacement for Ginger, as well as in the capture of Shelter, and many were upset at her treatment of Link at the end of the novel. Responses to the second essay choice were empathetic, with the best linking that quality with apt detail from the text. The earlier stages of the novel were the most frequently selected, the sleeping bag gift eliciting particular sympathy, but some also chose to discuss Gail’s perceived betrayal, for example. Those who wrote more narratively, without selecting two or three incidents were judged according to the criteria, and were not specifically penalised for doing so.

40

Anita and Me is less frequently studied at this level, but those who had done so showed a detailed knowledge of the text, discussing the extract with thoughtfulness and empathy. The bullet points for the empathy essay question were useful in helping candidates structure their responses, which usually reflected a sound knowledge of the text and an awareness and understanding of Meena’s mother’s likely thoughts and feelings. With the second essay question, as with the one on Stone Cold, candidates who wrote more narratively, without selecting two or three incidents, were credited for the knowledge and understanding shown. Candidates respond to this novel with real engagement, and retain its (considerable!) detail well. Section B As on the Higher tier, there were very few responses to Under Milk Wood. There was plenty of detail in the extract for candidates to select from, and all recognised where it came from. The question on the characters’ dreams was probably equally popular to that on love, but this is a play that candidates of all abilities seem to find relatively difficult to write about at length, perhaps owing to the way it is written, in small ‘snapshots’, and responses can fall into a sort of listing of instances. A View From The Bridge, however, is popular, and works well. As on the Higher tier, there was some over reading of the subtext, but most showed a clear awareness of the simmering tensions in the relationship, with quite a few discussing how Catherine could be seen as taking a wifely role. On the whole, candidates seemed more confident discussing Eddie, perhaps as they felt more empathy for Catherine, and felt outraged at Eddie’s controlling nature. The essay on the relationship between Catherine and Eddie was the more popular of the two. Most wrote with engagement of their first meeting, but some ran out of steam when addressing the later stages of their relationship. The best followed through to the kisses, Eddie’s betrayal and the end of the play, but a significant number faded before this point. As has been mentioned before, candidates who are prepared to select incidents from throughout the texts (beginning, middle and end) fare the best. The advice to Beatrice question was less popular, perhaps because she is perceived by some candidates as a rather peripheral character. Some felt that she would be well advised to spend a lot of time in the kitchen, brandishing dusters and tea towels, or with her hands covered in flour, an interpretation possibly owing more than a little to the extract. An Inspector Calls is more popular on this tier than used to be the case, perhaps as more centres have decided to have all students using the same set texts. The play certainly engages candidates. As always, close reading of the stage directions, and selecting details from throughout the extract, including its end, paid dividends. On the whole, there was much empathy for Eric, with many thinking that drinking to excess is pretty normal, and that Sheila and his mother could have cut him a bit of slack. Some got caught up so much in this part of the extract that they paid insufficient attention to the references to his treatment of Eva Smith and to his final words in the extract. The Inspector was admired for his control, his putting Mr. Birling in his place, and his allowing Eric to have a drink, although some felt that this was a bit out of order in someone else’s house. Although advice to an actor responses are gradually improving, it is still worth pointing out that details about costume and staging or general advice to smile a lot, or to “blink three times at Gerald” are not worth as much as those who give advice grounded in detailed reference to the events of the play. Some get confused and give advice to the character as opposed to the actor. A useful hint is to imagine that the candidate, as themselves, rather than as a director, is giving advice about the role to someone who is unfamiliar with the play, based on their own opinions of the character, and their knowledge of the text. Examiners are advised to consider what help the advice would be to an actor who didn’t know the play well, and a character study type approach can work well. Some answers on the question on Sheila were over reliant on the extract, and did not refer to the change in her character. With the second essay, weaker responses re-told some, or all, of the story, with simple comments on the lines of “it makes us want to know what happens next”, or, indeed, “read on” but some considered staging and dramatic effects with some success. Some favourite parts were the arrival of the Inspector, the various revelations, and the end of the play.

41

Although fewer candidates on the Foundation tier have studied any of the three Shakespeare plays, those who do so manage well. Of the three plays, The Merchant Of Venice has become the minority choice, on both tiers. Candidates made sensible, and often personal and empathetic, comments on Lorenzo and Jessica in their responses on the extract. As on the Higher tier, Shylock was practically a unanimous choice as deserving of sympathy, in responses to Q. 12 (b), which was the more popular of the two essays. The favourite choices for examples for characters being treated fairly or unfairly were the trial scene, followed by the casket scene, although some wrote about the ending of the play. There were more answers on Romeo and Juliet, partly on account of those who chose to write about it having enjoyed the film. The extract was familiar to candidates, but, as with every scene in the play, interpretations owe more to Luhrmann than to any other version, which is, perhaps, rather a pity. The bullet points for both of the essay questions were helpful to candidates in structuring their answers; the one on love was the more popular, and candidates found plenty to write about here. One virtue of the various film versions is that candidates feel a sort of ownership of the play, and are confident in their discussion of it. Othello works well with all levels of ability, and those who answered on it at this level had strong opinions on the characters in the extract. Emilia seems to have a number of fans in today’s students, although Desdemona’s extreme loyalty and naivety arouses empathy, or, perhaps, pity, too. The bullet points for the question on Cassio definitely pointed candidates in the right direction, whilst the extract served as a warm up for those who chose Q. 14 (c), very few, if any, choosing to write about Bianca. Hobson’s Choice is relatively popular on the Foundation tier, with Maggie inspiring many of the candidates, particularly the girls. As always, those who tracked through, selecting and highlighting, having first established valid areas of focus, in order to cover the whole of the extract, were well rewarded. Answers to the second part of the extract were sometimes a bit vague, but this did not affect overall performance, as the question is judged by the quality of the answer as a whole. For the new papers, of course, the (ii) section of the current Foundation paper will be subsumed by (i), and there will only be a single question asked. When it came to the essays, Maggie, a character regarded with admiration by most, and a certain amount of awe by others, was the more popular choice. For the second part, as with some other questions of this type, candidates had some difficulty in disentangling specific parts of the play, preferring to tell the whole story, an approach which was accepted, and judged on its merit, by examiners. Finally, Blood Brothers is perennially popular. The extract worked well, being rich with subtext, and the dramatic impetus carried most candidates right through to its conclusion, which was a bonus. Those who were able to establish the context of the extract and appreciated the significance of the locket did particularly well, and many made good use of stage directions highlighting Mrs. Lyons’ rapid mood swings and their effect on Edward. Any doubters of empathy tasks would have had their reservations assuaged by the quality of the responses to the question on Mrs. Johnstone, with many really capturing the character’s voice and attitudes. Some were rather general, but the best made good use of their secure knowledge of the text, and many were very moving, and included references to themes as well as to characters and their relationships. The second essay choice also worked well, with the shootings frequently featuring, as well as the meetings between the twins. Some drifted into narrative, but still discussed gripping and/or exciting parts along the way.

42

Section C It was a joy to read many of the responses to Elizabeth Jennings’ poem Wasp in a Room, and also a bit of an education to learn how many candidates seemed to consider wasps and bees as interchangeable. A significant number felt the setting was a classroom or a library, evidently owing to the reference to books, and others echoed the perennial adult advice, If you leave them alone, they won’t hurt you! Some thought the wasp was the one doing the chasing and knocking over the furniture, but even these showed an awareness of the mood and atmosphere. A discriminator was those who appreciated the voice as being that of the wasp, and those who tackled the imagery were well on their way to a high mark. The references to radar and to the small, flying, buzzing tiger were readily picked up by the majority, and allowed access to grade C, while a few noted how the reference to jester represented the element of entertainment. As with the Higher tier, perhaps it is best to let some of the responses speak for themselves: This poem is suitable for anyone with a pulse. It’s as if the bee is like, “Yes! Come on! Bring it on!” The next time I have a wasp in my room I’m not gonna kill it I’m going to open the window and let it free. I’m definitely not going to mess about with them in the future and make sure I kill it first. I like this poem because it gave me confidence on writing about it. This is a very cheeky wasp. The poem makes you look around to see if there’s a wasp in the room. So, another year, and again, examiners on both tiers frequently expressed their admiration at the quality of responses which were confident, thoughtful, and knowledgeable, with even those achieving at the lower grades showing a confidence in their engagement with the texts in all three sections of the paper. Teachers in departments up and down the country have every right to be proud of their students’ achievements.

43

SPECIFICATION B The joy of Spec. B is that every year’s examination provides totally unexpected responses to our questions. It is a continuing credit to the authors in The Anthology that the work never becomes stale or formula driven. Spec. B is at its best when students enter the exam prepared to answer on any text in the anthology; my view is that students should only make final selections of texts after thoroughly examining the question stems. They should have a clear knowledge of the contents of all texts and have ideas for comparative texts to match whatever is chosen for the paper. It is inevitable that teachers will attempt question spotting but not always helpful to students. This year in one centre I saw an essay on The Rain Horse which had clearly been delivered to students and learned by them; sadly it was all too apparent that the student had a minimal understanding of either the story or what s/he wrote about it. Some other centres had decided that this was the year for Villa Park and students were left trying to ‘fit’ the story to an unhelpful stem. I still had the feeling that The Good Teachers was an exercise in unseen poetry for some unfortunate students despite the poem never being specified for 2a. It was extremely worrying to see that Steel Town Sunsets was still subject to misreading about pollution after all these years. Q.1 (a) This question was answered well by almost all students. On Foundation I hoped to make clear that the relationship changed throughout the passage and that I expected students to use all of the extract. On Higher Tier some students decided to concentrate their entire answers on Lines 72/76 which in my view weakened them considerably. Some students were guilty of “thinking too precisely on the event” as they endeavoured to convince me that the words “the” and “all” were significant uses of language to illustrate the relationship. As always answers varied in length from the self penalising short responses to answers which were so long and repetitive that they caused timing issues later in the paper. Q.1 (b) This was the more successful of the Prose questions and probably more often chosen. As is usually the case I did not specify a text for Higher Tier believing that selection is one of the key skills in determining Grades B/A*. On Foundation Tier I specified Niagara Falls All Over Again as the starting point. The most popular choice of texts were usually Niagara and The New Boy which I anticipated might be the case thinking that this pair of texts provided ready material for comparisons. As noted above some students were determined to use Villa Park with varying degrees of success; one student concluded that Aston Villa lost the match against Leeds United while others were remarkably successful in demonstrating that Pop’s purpose in taking Maggie to the match might well have been to distract her from her mother’s death. These students showed how the sense of belonging to a family of football fans with shared beliefs was a considerable substitute. The best answers examined the paragraph detailing the Mother’s appearance clinging to a cloud before evaluating whether Pop’s strategy had been successful. I did not expect Villa Park to feature so regularly.

44

Q.1 (c) This was the less popular of the questions and seemed to cause some problems to students possibly because they feel they know the stories so well that nothing remains unexpected. On both tiers I allowed students a free choice from the stories and again The New Boy was probably the most popular choice. Many Higher Tier students chose The Rain Horse but few of them decided to treat the appearance and behaviour of the horse as the unexpected event in the story. Instead I was given less convincing arguments that the rejection of Nature by The Man or the rejection of his youth were the unexpected events of the text. As always there is no prescribed content in the mark scheme and students are allowed most readings of a text. The most interesting comparison I saw was of Extraordinary Little Cough and The Lesson which coupled the stories in a most unusual way. It might be worth musing about the most successful method of comparing Prose texts. Like last year I became convinced that treating the texts sequentially was preferable to trying to construct an integrated comparison. I think the texts are too long for most students to handle in this way and very few students have the selection skills to choose material from the texts and incorporate it with the question stem. It became more difficult to assess, when students moved between texts within paragraphs. It might also be worth mentioning that this year I became aware of what was almost a compulsion to compare; it seemed that every paragraph had to illustrate an example of comparison, ranging from first to third person narrative to past or present tense used in the story. This obsessive comparison always obscured what ought to be the central comparison of how two writers develop their material in relation to the stem of the question. A very minor point was a small number of students who used Poetry texts in response to this section; almost always relating Tony Harrison’s poems to loss. Q.2 (a) For some years now it has been apparent that students found this poem elusive. Undaunted, I chose the poem and tried to help both tiers through bullet points. I was pleased by the majority of responses but worried that some students were penalised by what appeared to be an unseen poem. Soon the opportunity to write about prepared poems in exam conditions will be lost. It was worrying to read that “Dar es Salaam” was another example of a foreign language and a relief to learn that teachers “were no longer allowed to measure you as it had to be done by parents” and that “Got your number” simply related to teachers phoning home. As always I wondered how many students read, “In this poem the poet is looking at an old school photograph and thinking about her memories of school.” It is inevitable in the panic of the exam room that some attempts to aid students are simply missed. I was pleased that the bullet point “think about the poem’s title” made some students recognise that there might well be some irony here which they went on to explore but surprised that the bullet point “different voices in the poem” seemed to be unhelpful to students. My innocent reading of the poem was that some lines are the words of teachers triggered by looking at the photograph but this reading did not seem to be widely shared. The final lines of the poem were usually ignored or dutiful expressions of regret for ill spent youth were aired. No one seemed prepared to consider the view that “dancing, lovebites, marriage, the Cheltenham and Gloucester” might be considerably more exciting than what happened in school.

45

As ever there were the routine detailing of what my colleague on Spec. A refers to as “counting” where technical devices are celebrated. Among these were: “long and short sentences” usually copied out with no attempt to show their contribution to the student’s realisation of the poem’s meaning; Caesura always unspecified and with no concern for meaning; the fact that the final six line stanza (or more likely paragraph) was split in two sections of three lines; my personal ‘bete noir’ of enjambement and its ability to make ‘the poem flow’ continued not to impress. Looking at the final six lines using the “voices” bullet point might have produced something highly significant. What the poem is about is always preferable to ‘Here are the devices I have spotted!’ it is still all too rare that students realise that devices are used to ‘amplify’ meaning. Generally speaking, I would say that specifying the poem for 2(a), resulted in students being able to make sensible comments on the poem to a much higher standard than in previous years. Q.2 (b) “In his poems, Tony Harrison makes us laugh, cry and think.” Almost without exception students discounted ‘laugh’. Worse still were those students who felt that dialect must be a cause of laughter. Students were more ready to display that they were prepared to ‘think and cry’. Fire Eater surprised me by its popularity along with Long Distance 1&2. Can I suggest once more that this text be treated as two poems as treating it as a single text over burdens students as they wrestle with three poems quite contrary to the WJEC spirit of comparison? Timer seemed to produce a number of strange readings this year. One quite exceptional student found much to laugh at in Bringing Up and Long Distance before delivering the insight that after laughing at things we ‘think and cry’ even more. I had expected many more students to deliver this insight after hearing about ‘comic relief’ elsewhere. Only one student realised that Tony Harrison is the most formal poet in the anthology but unfortunately went on to talk about verse form and the joys of rhyme schemes in a celebration of “counting”. Rhyme is often how Tony Harrison makes his meaning explicit and his variations of rhyme scheme are related to the development of the poems’ ideas. It is better that students revel in the poet’s use of language. Q.2 (c) This question was possibly the most successful of this year’s paper. Most students knew where the quotation came from and the majority examined Boy as part of their response. It was sheer delight to find students who identified the quotation and then had the confidence [on both tiers] to select poems which they believed contained some aspect of “terror”. Many students chose other poems by Carol Ann Duffy such as Stealing, Miles Away, In Mrs Tilscher’s Class but few chose Valentine which I thought would be by far the most frequent choice. Sheenagh Pugh was a popular choice with Sandman, Frost Greyface being most frequently chosen. Some students decided to apply the quotation to Tony Harrison’s poetry always less successfully than in responding to 2(a). What was impressive was the range of poems that students that were able to use in answering the question.

46

DRAMA Q.3 I saw no answers on Under Milk Wood. Q.4 Questions (a) and (b) were equally popular. As is often the case 4(a) seemed to present students with the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of the text more easily. Most, but not all unfortunately, realised that it made sense to examine the relationship chronologically. 4(b) seemed to suffer this year from a desire to provide stage directions or give advice to the play’s director rather than to the actor. I became all too familiar with advice about where: Beatrice ought to stand (on top of Catherine was easily the best suggestion); what she ought to do with her hands, eyebrows and voice. The most successful students realised that they had to refer to specific events in the drama but I saw almost no scripts where Beatrice’s words and their meaning were analysed; I would repeat CPD training advice “It’s in the words!” Q.5 This was by far the most popular text this year in the scripts I saw. The criticisms I made directly above apply equally to 5(a). Too often the focus of the answers was to a director and to provide stage directions. Possibly because Sheila does obviously change in the play the question was more successful than in 4(b). 5(b) produced a variety of responses usually specific to individual centres or the tiers. The weakest answers (on both tiers) were plot driven where each character’s role was explained. Few students seemed to choose what they identified as the key moments in the text and then accounted for their success. All answers would have been improved by a close knowledge and examination of specific scenes; at worst answers could have almost been about any play. Mr Birling’s statements about war and the Titanic were lovingly recounted but relatively few students were able to analyse how this prepared the ground for his later speeches/attitudes. A new feature this year was an analysis of the text using the ‘seven deadly sins’ which like all frameworks became an end in itself rather than revealing anything new about the text or characters. Perhaps one ‘sin’ could capture all the characters? Socialism versus Capitalism was another strategy which only partly illuminated characters’ motives and I was deeply suspicious of the claim that Sheila and Eric became socialists at the end of the play. Q.6 I saw no responses to The Merchant of Venice.

47

Q.7 For the first time on this Specification I saw answers on Romeo and Juliet. Students found it hard without a text to be specific in discussing the part played by Benvolio; most were able to account for his desire to be peacemaker but specific knowledge was limited. 4(b) was probably more successful and allowed students more opportunity to range across the text and to discuss different types of love. I found it interesting that students responding to this task probably showed the closest textual knowledge; it was not unusual to find students accurately quoting from the text to illustrate the different types of love. It would be a welcome development if all students were able to demonstrate such a level of textual knowledge. Q.8 I saw no responses on this text. Q.9 I saw no responses on this text. Q.10 Perhaps this is the text where students show the least specific knowledge of the text. Most answers would have been transformed by some of the textual specificity demonstrated in questions 7(a) & (b). Students really should be able to discuss specific scenes involving the designated characters. 10(a) was probably more successful as successfully voicing the character is a great step on the road to success. I was dismayed by one student’s attempt to respond to our injunction “Remember how Mrs Johnstone would speak” by writing the response in what the student believed to be a Liverpool accent complete with phonetic spelling. 10(b) suffered in the same way as 5(b). Students’ responses suffered from a lack of textual detail and I saw the usual formulaic answers about ‘tension’ which could have applied to any text on the paper. An exception to the rule was the student who realised that the songs are not just decorations to the text and that their lyrics could indeed be helpful. It might be useful for centres to revisit their policies on entries to tiers; unlike English where entry on the tiers has remained largely balanced, English Literature has seen a steady decline in the use of Foundation Tier and some centres are now exclusively Higher Tier. With our differentiation of questions by bullet points, I think that Foundation Tier still has a valuable role to play and during the border line process I was curious about some of the entry decisions. Thanks to our authors who have provided the texts for our anthology and to that small band of devoted centres who have shared the delightful challenges of Spec. B. GCSE English & English Literature - Examiners Report - Summer 2010 / KB 13/10/2010

WJEC 245 Western Avenue Cardiff CF5 2YX Tel No 029 2026 5000 Fax 029 2057 5994 E-mail: exams@wjec.co.uk website: www.wjec.co.uk