GCSE
English/English Language
ENG1H – Understanding and producing non-fiction texts
Report on the Examination
4700/4705
November 2014
Version: 0.1
Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk
Copyright © 2014 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this
booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any
material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE ENGLISH/ENGLISH LANGUAGE – ENG1H – NOVEMBER 2014
Examiners report that the examination overall was accessible and that candidates had adequate
time to complete all questions.
Question 1
Most candidates were able to retrieve some information relating to the issues of early-age
schooling, and some were able to correctly distinguish the particular points affecting different
groups of children. Nearly all candidates showed understanding of the first two paragraphs,
including the points made about Finland’s success. However, a number of candidates generalised
by grouping all children together, assuming that they all had the same issues. Furthermore, many
candidates overlooked the fact that paragraph four referred only to ‘clever kids’, and the weakest
responses simply paraphrased, or copied, parts of the text. The better answers recognised the
sometimes subtle points being made by the writer and offered at least clear comments on these.
Candidate should understand that, for this question, comments about the writer’s linguistic choices
are not relevant and not rewarded.
Question 2
There was plenty for candidates to interpret and explain here, with both the headline and picture
rich in possibilities. However, the responses were mixed. A good many candidates made simple or
generalised comments about the effects of the headline, with some assuming a degree of primitive
isolation for ‘Island children’ not supported by the text. A number of candidates recognised that
there was a pun, but often offered no explanation or interpretation of what the effect might be.
Better responses dealt, sometimes interestingly, with connotations of ‘bask in the glow’ and offered
clear comments on the phrase ‘virtual classroom’. Most candidates remarked on the glow on the
children’s faces, but many linked this to the word ‘glow’ in the headline without illuminating either,
and apparently, and erroneously, believing that such a link was relevant to the question. The best
answers explored the detail of the picture and offered interesting comments on the effects of these
on the reader – but such responses were rare. Links between relevant parts of the text and ‘virtual
classroom’ and ‘glow’ in the headline, were usually at least attempted by candidates, as were
similar aspects illustrated in the picture.
Question 3
Most candidates were able to show understanding of at least some of the thoughts and feelings
Jane had and attempted an explanation of them – for example that she felt ‘impressed’ or
‘impressive’, that she was determined and that she felt pleasure as she passed the bakery. The
most successful responses were not only detailed, but offered at least clear interpretations of
thoughts and feelings, particularly concerning her having free school dinners, in her changed
relationship with her two erstwhile friends and her attitude to being ‘a grammar school girl’. Weaker
responses made generalised comments, for example, that she was ‘happy’ or that she liked the
school. There was some evidence of misreading – that Jane was a ‘he’, that she was cycling to
school, that she was uncomfortable, that she was frightened or scared or that she was missing her
former friends. Candidates should understand, that for this question, comments on the writer’s
linguistic choices and references to the thoughts and feelings of the reader are not relevant , nor
are they rewarded.
Question 4
This question was generally not well answered with very few candidates achieving a mark in Band
3. There were many candidates who wrote about audience, purpose, content and comparison of
content, sentence lengths and punctuation choices – none of which was asked for and none of
which gained marks. Where language choices or devices were selected – popular ones were
‘Shops and houses flew by’, ‘The wind threatened’, ‘piercing the dusk’ from Source 3, and
sometimes an attempt at ‘straitjacket’ from Source 1 - the comments on effect were usually
simple, limited or generalised. A number of candidates resorted to comparison by omission, i.e.
3 of 4
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE ENGLISH/ENGLISH LANGUAGE – ENG1H – NOVEMBER 2014
simply stating that, for example, ‘Source 3 uses alliteration but Source 2 doesn’t’ - an observation
which does not reach Band 2. The few candidates who achieved a mark in Band 3 did so by
offering a clear interpretation of the effect of language features, for example: “A metaphor has
been used ‘shops and houses flew by’ to tell the reader about what she was seeing. This is
effective because it is exaggerating the truth and giving the illusion that she was going so fast that
her vision was blurred and misjudged”.
Question 5
The topic, describing a memorable event from school days and explaining why it has remained
unforgettable, proved an accessible, indeed enjoyable task for candidates of all abilities and ages.
Candidates wrote enthusiastically about, for example, sports days or memorable sporting matches,
first and final days at school, memorable fellow students or members of staff and attending the
school prom. Most candidates achieved a mark in Band 3 for content and organisation, and almost
half attained a mark of six out of ten, a statistic which suggests general clarity and success in
communication. Writing was generally accurate, with 70% achieving a mark of four out of six.
Interestingly, nearly 10% of candidates were awarded five marks out of six for accuracy, indicating
that they were able to sustain accuracy, whilst employing a variety of sentence forms and
vocabulary to good effect.
Question 6
Most candidates expressed their views on the topic with at least some success though, generally,
they were less comfortable with this task than with Question 5. Although candidates were able, on
the whole, to give a cogent account of life in the city, the perceptions of life ‘on a small island’ were
less clear and less persuasive in pursuance of their argument. Despite the work they had already
done on Source 2 – which featured a small island, and from which the impetus for the question
arose – there were some esoteric notions of what life would be like in such a place, ranging from it
being a place of extreme heat, palm trees and sand, to a place devoid of jobs, communication,
education and even food, where one would be severed from friends and family. Furthermore,
there was a tendency for a number of candidates to spend time and words deliberating on what
kind of person could actually make the claim presented in the quotation, rather than engaging with
the principles and ideas the quotation presented. Although over half of the candidates achieved a
mark just in Band 3, only 7% attained a mark at the top of that band and very few offered a
convincing argument. Only about 50% of candidates achieved a mark of five out of eight for
accuracy in response to this question, perhaps indicating that they found the question, generally,
more of a challenge than Question 5.
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades
Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics
page of the AQA Website.
Converting Marks into UMS marks
Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below.
UMS conversion calculator
4 of 4