GCSE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
ENGLISH, ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND
ENGLISH LITERATURE
SUMMER 2012
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Statistical Information
The Examiner’s 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.
Annual Statistical Report
The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall
outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
ENGLISH/ENGLISH LANGUAGE
General Certificate of Secondary Education
Summer 2012
Chair of Examiners:
Mr. B.J.D. Childs
Chief Examiner:
Dr. K.C. Elliott
Principal Examiners:
Mr. E. Snell
Mr. S.H. Sage
Mrs. J. Hingley
FOUNDATION TIER
Unit 1 (Reading)
The two texts worked well alongside each other and candidates seemed to have been engaged
by the subject matter. For example, when writing about the young schoolboy whose parents
were determined to raise money so that he could attend the Royal Ballet School, one candidate
wrote, “Mr and Mrs Faulkner love Keenan so much they want him to be as successful as can
be. I wish my parents would send me to a school like that. He’s a very lucky boy”. The
questions offered candidates the opportunity to demonstrate a range of reading skills and there
were many good responses that showed a willingness to track the texts carefully and make
sensible selections of evidence that supported inferences.
Most candidates completed the paper but there were some incomplete scripts and there were
also some responses that were very brief and made only limited use of the texts; these
inevitably failed to gain good marks.
Q.1
This first question invited candidates to show their ability to locate and select specific
details from the text. Although this required a careful reading of the whole of the text,
good candidates had few problems with the questions and many gained full marks.
Some weaker candidates failed to read the questions carefully enough and selected
incorrect information or details. One part of the question, for example, asked how
Keenan, the boy who had won a place at the Royal Ballet School, would spend his day
at the school. Most candidates were able to successfully locate the information:
spending up to eight hours of dancing lessons and four hours of general education each
day. However, some candidates, who had perhaps not read the question carefully
enough, focused on how he currently spent his time at home, practising ballet, tap and
jazz routines. Others made simple errors of selection, muddling up the numbers of
applicants for places with the numbers of students accepted on the course. The final
part of the first question asked candidates how the children at Keenan’s school reacted
to his success. The question was worth two marks but quite a lot of candidates made
just one point, often just selecting part of the penultimate paragraph in the text (“News of
Keenan’s success was greeted with delight”). By doing this and failing to use the details
in the final paragraph where readers are told that the boys stood up and started
clapping and some of them even asked for his autograph, some candidates missed the
opportunity of gaining the second mark. This was a straightforward question, requiring
mostly simple location and selection of details from the text, and although many gained
full or nearly full marks, it was disappointing to see scripts where a number of simple
marks had been lost through careless reading, sometimes of the question as well as the
text.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
Q.2
This question focused on the newspaper article about Keenan Faulkner, the nine-yearold boy who had won a place at the Royal Ballet School and asked what readers learn
about the parents from the newspaper article. The bullet points indicated that there was
reward for selecting relevant facts and details about them, but the second bullet point
invited candidates to probe the text rather more carefully to make some comments
about `the kind of people they are`. This presented the opportunity to make inferences
about the parents and to use the textual evidence to support the assertions they made.
Although it was acceptable to tackle the question almost in two separate parts, most
candidates sensibly developed responses that made use of the factual details as a
starting point for more detailed comments about them as parents.
From their reading of the article, almost all candidates could see that as well as being
loving parents, they possessed a steely determination to do everything they could to
ensure that Keenan would be able to go to the Royal Ballet School’s boarding school in
London. There was some reward for simply `spotting` some of the details, such as the
amount the parents needed to raise, or what Mr Faulkner earned, but it was where
candidates could make the links between the details and then make sensible comments
about what this showed about them as parents that the highest marks were gained. For
example, many candidates noted that the parents would have to raise £100,000 to send
their son to the school, but better readers commented that this was a huge sum for them
to raise. The best candidates then commented on this in relation to what Mr Faulkner
earned from his job and recognised the extraordinary financial commitment they were
taking on. Some weaker candidates were able to make some selection of details about
Mr Faulkner: he was prepared to take on a second job, or that he wanted to go on a TV
show to win money but did not link these details to his absolute determination to raise
the money so that Keenan would be able to go to the Royal Ballet School. It was where
candidates could link these details and make sensible comments that they were able to
push their marks up.
Good candidates explored both parents’ determination to raise the money but also
commented in some detail on the sacrifices they were prepared to make. Many noted
that both of the parents talked about their willingness to raise money by re-mortgaging
their house. However, good candidates then linked this to the parents’ recognition that
though they would be “permanently poor for the next few years”, they were entirely
comfortable with this decision; this gave these good candidates more opportunities to
comment on what this showed about them as parents. Other candidates also focused
on the obvious pride the parents felt about their son’s success and talent, with good
candidates often linking their comments to quotations from Keenan’s mother. Towards
the end of the article, Keenan’s father confesses to some anxieties about the way his
son might have been treated by his peers, worrying that, “they might take the mickey out
of Keenan with so few boys doing ballet and tap”. Good candidates used this to
comment on the parents’ protectiveness about Keenan and this, along with the other
aspects of their characters and the lengths they were prepared to go to for the sake of
their son, provided highest attaining candidates with lots of material to shape a really
good response.
It is also worth reporting that there were too many candidates who tried to approach this
question (and indeed, question 3 as well) by using bullet-points rather than writing their
answers in full sentences. In general, this is not a helpful approach to these questions
that require tracking, inference or analysis as responses are often disjointed, lack detail
and the approach makes it very difficult for candidates to make links between one part
of their answer and another. It was rare to see responses that were tackled in this way
gaining high marks, and unless a candidate has struggled with time management during
the examination and has to take this route as an emergency measure, it is an approach
to be discouraged.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
Q.3
This question focused on the second text, an internet article about Ambreen Sadiq, a
15-year-old girl from Bradford who was unusual in that she was not only a female boxer
but also a Muslim girl boxer. The article told readers about her success in the boxing
ring but also about the way her choice of sport had affected the way she was viewed by
her local community. The question asked candidates to explore the different
impressions of Ambreen that readers are given of her through this article.
Almost all candidates recognised that Ambreen was a talented boxer and many were
able to support this view with the evidence that she had already attended one training
session with the England boxing squad, or that she had won the national female
championship for her age and weight and was “aiming for the 2012 Olympics” at the
age of 15. These stronger responses wrote about the ambition Ambreen showed or her
determination to be successful. It was the fact that she was also a Muslim that marked
her out as especially unusual, and good readers gained reward for using the opening
sentence of the article to emphasise and support this impression that we are first given
of her.
Many candidates also saw that despite her talent, Ambreen’s path to success was not a
smooth one, and there was evidence in the text about the strength of the opposition to
her boxing from some members of her community. Weaker readers tended to simply
note some of the details of this opposition and struggled to link it to the question. For
example, they often quoted what Ambreen said about opponents who had talked to her
parents, but failed to say how this had impacted upon her, and more importantly, what
impression this then gave of her. Others simply quoted parts of the text, saying that she
had, “overcome opposition from her community” but had not linked this to the
impression this gave of her, whilst stronger candidates wrote about how this showed her
mental toughness or her bravery in the face of opponents.
Candidates who tracked the text found no shortage of impressions that the article gave
of Ambreen. For example, as well as writing about her ambition, talent and mental
strength, there were other impressions that were equally valid. Some high scoring
candidates were able to explore the `public` and the `private` side of her character,
seeing that whilst publicly she dismissed criticisms of those who were opposed to her
boxing, “paid no attention to those who disapproved of her boxing” and “she doesn’t
listen to negative comments”, privately she confessed to feeling hurt by such criticism:
“When they say stuff like that, I do feel really down” or “It really upsets me and gets to
me”. In contrast, some weaker candidates tended to include details about Ambreen
rather than use the details to show the kind of character she was. They often quoted
parts of the text but struggled to link it to the impression this gave of her.
In creating and shaping impressions of Ambreen, some of the content details helped to
anchor the kinds of views and judgements made about her, but alongside this, many
candidates saw the use of the writer’s choice of language as important. Where they did
this, they particularly focused on the use of the word, `pioneer` to show how Ambreen
was unusual from others in her community. To emphasise her talent and skill, many
focused on the way she performed in the ring, writing about how she was, “a rapid-fire
fighting machine”. Others probed a little more deeply, and commented on how her
behaviour in the ring was very different from how she behaved in her everyday life, and
gained reward for this exploration of her private and public face. The text makes use of
interviews, not only with Ambreen herself but of others connected with her or more
generally with boxing. Some candidates saw that this was a technique by which
impressions had been created, whilst others tried to make more specific comments on
particular interviews, such as her coach, Naz Jazil, who emphasised Ambreen’s
qualities of mental strength as well as her determination to succeed, using this to
complement the impression given in the opening paragraph.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
Q.4
Candidates have often found this final question challenging because of the requirement
to make use of both texts but across both tiers, the use of bullet points to focus attention
on specific texts or details has helped candidates to be clear about what is required. In
this instance, for the first two parts of the question, candidates were required to deal
with each text separately, looking for ways in which Ambreen and Keenan were
unusual, then in the final bullet point to consider how they were similar.
Most candidates were able to identify at least some points that gained reward in each
part of the question. For example, in looking at how Keenan was unusual, most
candidates recognised that boy ballet dancers were fairly rare, which immediately
gained reward. Some candidates insisted that he was unusual because he wasn’t like
his friends, which gained no reward, or that he didn’t like football, whilst others were too
vague, saying he did a `different sport` from others. Where they were able to link his
ballet dancing to the fact that he came from a very ordinary background – some said
`working class` or `poor background` to show he was unusual – this too gained reward.
Some focused on the fact that he had won a place at the Royal Ballet School, whilst
others talked about his obsession with dancing that made him unusual, often quoting his
mother who told readers “he absolutely lives for dancing” and that he spent every
minute he possibly could doing it.
Those who carefully tackled how Ambreen was unusual gained reward by saying that
not only was she unusual because she was a girl boxer, but being a Muslim girl boxer
made her even more unusual. They also gained reward by noting that she was a
national boxing champion.
In the final part of the question, most candidates at least recognised that Ambreen and
Keenan were similar because they were particularly talented in their chosen activity.
Others talked about their success, often giving details in each case, and were also
rewarded if they focused on youngsters’ absolute determination to be the best. Some
candidates selected details that showed careful reading of the texts, such as the fact
that both had begun their activities by going along with siblings to boxing or dancing
classes. However, some mistakenly talked about them both ignoring the criticism of
others, although there was no evidence of this in the newspaper article about Keenan.
Other candidates recognised that they both had a talent in activities that were perhaps
regarded as unusual for their gender, or their backgrounds, which in both cases were
regarded as unusual in producing female boxers or ballet stars.
This final question was not one that demanded a lengthy response but did require care
and precision. Weaker candidates tended to content themselves with just one or
perhaps two points for each part of the question, and disappointingly, some had
incomplete answers, but where the texts had been read carefully, there were some
perceptive and detailed answers that gained high marks.
Unit 2 (Writing)
Although there was a little additional support for candidates on Foundation Tier in the form of
some bullet points offering suggestions about the possible content for question 2, the writing
tasks were 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.
The tasks set, writing a formal letter and a guide encouraging visitors to their home area, gave
lots of opportunities for candidates to write in two different styles and registers. Whilst the letter
required a particular layout and formality of approach, the format for the guide was less
important, and although some candidates chose to present material in the form of a leaflet,
others chose to write in the first person or even in letter format; any of these approaches or
formats was perfectly acceptable. In each of the pieces, the quality of the content was the
prime consideration.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
4
A number of markers commented on the brevity of some of the work on this tier, and whilst
length was not the only consideration, brief responses inevitably tended to lack range and
depth and struggled to gain high marks. Although highlighted in the Principal Examiner’s
Higher Tier report, it is also worth saying here that basic technical accuracy remains a particular
issue for Foundation Tier candidates, with inaccurate punctuation and basic spelling errors
frequently commented upon by markers. Errors in agreement when using is/are, was/were and
so on were also regularly seen in the work of candidates at all levels of ability and impacted on
the overall mark awarded.
Q.1
The letter to a newspaper on the subject of TV talent shows gave candidates the
opportunity to give their opinions on a topic about which most had clear views. The
instructions for the writing tasks make it clear that candidates should consider the
purpose, audience, “and where appropriate, the format” for the writing. However, too
many simply ignored the conventions of letter layout and salutation. These are not the
most important considerations, but do help to establish the correct approach and
register to be adopted. In some cases where addresses had been attempted, the
details were jumbled, with the postcode appearing on the top line and the street address
at the end. These are relatively simple details and worth some focus in preparing for the
examination. Similarly, those candidates who decided to complicate the salutation often
got themselves in a muddle by writing to: “Dear to whom this may concern”. A simple
`Dear Sir/Madam,` works perfectly adequately and also means the letter can conclude,
`Yours faithfully,` avoiding the need to rehearse the spelling of `sincerely` which most
candidates still seem to struggle with.
Some weaker candidates began their letters in a rather uncertain manner, by more or
less copying out the task details, although most had a sensible opening sentence that
explained why they were writing and in some cases what their views were. Good
responses showed they had prepared well for this type of task, and the letters often took
the form of a brief introduction followed by four or five paragraphs, each pursuing a
specific viewpoint or opinion. These often began with a clear topic sentence that
identified what was about to be explored, with the rest of the paragraph usually
consisting of four to seven sentences that developed the viewpoint. Most had clear
views on the subject and the best responses tended to follow one line of argument, with
each paragraph adding weight to the view that they were either an essential part of
British culture and were not to be missed, or that they served no purpose, other than
lining the pockets of the judges or were the opportunity to humiliate those with no talent.
Some candidates tried to argue for and against the shows in the same letter, suggesting
that whilst they had a part to play in uncovering new talent, there were a number of
concerns these shows raised. Generally, these responses were less successful,
particularly where writers began with an outright condemnation of the shows in one
paragraph but then stoutly defended them in the following one.
The good responses tended to make use of specific examples of those appearing on
the shows to support their opinions, and many had extensive knowledge of who had
won, when, and how their careers had flourished or waned since their appearance on
the shows. Weaker responses sometimes drifted into explanations of how the shows
were conducted rather than offering an opinion on them, and as with higher tier
candidates, there were a significant number who wrote to Simon Cowell personally or
seemed to believe the newspaper editor had a direct line to the judges and could pass
on the suggestions for improvements that the writers believed were necessary. Some
also seemed to expect the editor to write a reply. The use of statistics, surveys and
quotations from those interviewed in the course of collecting information for the letters
sometimes suggested a degree of desperation on the part of some writers, and most
would have produced better responses if they had simply developed their opinions more
thoroughly than applying a rather clumsy `checklist` of things to include. Good
responses were often about two sides in length, ranged across the subject well and tried
to organise and structure their responses sensibly.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5
Q.2
This task invited candidates to produce a guide to encourage people to visit their home
area. The bullet points included with the task details were intended to provide some
starting points for the writing, but as with all writing in this unit, the first decisions needed
to focus on the audience for the writing and the purpose. In this case, many candidates
took a cue from the second bullet point that suggested their guide might include
attractions for different age groups, and many tried to write their guide with families in
mind. They also needed to encourage visitors to the area, so the tone needed to be
positive and upbeat. Once these decisions had been made, choosing exactly where
they were to write about was another important decision. Some chose wisely, thinking
of places and local attractions that would entice visitors for a day trip or perhaps longer,
but others chose places or areas that made it difficult to write about, simply because
they could then find little to say that might attract visitors. For example, some
candidates living in cities or close to tourist areas sometimes chose an area of the city
or resort that appeared to have little to offer, when a little thought and focus on a slightly
wider area might have given them much richer opportunities. It was interesting to read
the work of those candidates who had clearly given some thought to the choice of area
or place, before they launched into writing about it, because they were often able to
sustain their responses the most successfully and were able to select interesting
attractions to write about. It was also not the case that candidates who lived in tourist
hotspots necessarily produced the most interesting guides; often weaker candidates
produced little more than a list of attractions, with little detail or information that gave a
sense of the place. Weaker responses to the task often resorted to a bullet-point list of
what was available, giving equal weight to a castle on the hill and the town’s three fastfood outlets.
Despite candidates sometimes choosing locations a little unwisely, most were clear that
they were trying to give a positive message about the place and were trying to `sell` the
attractions to would-be visitors. This aspect of the work was often its strongest feature,
but sometimes resulted in slightly awkward responses, where finding attractions to write
about in an upbeat way was problematic: trying to enthusiastically sell the charms of the
local branch of a supermarket or pharmacy chain when they were likely to appear in
every high street in the land merely confirmed that the selection of content had not
always been well chosen.
Another problem that some candidates could not overcome was writing about attractions
too briefly or with a level of generality that meant readers could glean little specific
information. Where there was an impressive attraction to be written about, good
candidates tried to show some local knowledge, such as when a castle was built or a
little about its history, when guided tours took place, or what was contained in parts of a
museum and so on. It was these details that gave genuine interest to the writing, but it
was not only the grand attractions that could be written about in this way: some
candidates wrote about the charms of a specific pub, hotel or restaurant in the town or
village, often pointing out details like the dishes for which the restaurant was famed, or
the unusual features of an old pub. Two or three sentences giving interesting details
about specific attractions often gave the writing greater impact and a more authoritative
feel to the guide; too many responses though, seemed to content themselves with bald
or general details about the “good pubs in the area” or the “many restaurants and hotels
to suit everyone’s taste” and this lack of specific detail led to rather bland writing.
Despite the limitations seen in some of the writing, there were interesting responses to
places as diverse as cities with a throbbing nightlife, tiny hamlets in rural idylls, seaside
resorts that catered for mass tourism and towns and villages in all parts of England and
Wales that had hidden gems waiting to be discovered by visitors. Many candidates
wrote about their area with a real sense of pride and of the welcome that visitors could
expect, but it was also clear that some candidates had rushed into the writing of the
guide before they had fully thought through exactly what would be sensible to write
about, what would genuinely be of interest to a visitor, and what made their area or
place distinctive.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
6
HIGHER TIER
Unit 1 (Reading)
This material seemed to work well, perhaps for two main reasons. Firstly, the two texts were a
clear contrast in their presentation of the urban fox and, secondly, the candidates generally
seemed to be engaged by the topic. The questions followed a reasonably familiar pattern and it
was possible to break up the longer text into reasonably manageable sections, which always
helps.
Timing is an issue for the candidates in this unit and they do need to be disciplined and
organised. There were fewer incomplete scripts than last year and this aspect of the
examination will almost certainly improve as the candidates adjust to the demands of a paper
lasting one hour. That said, even a small number of incomplete scripts is a concern.
Although the numbers were not large, there were students who answered on the wrong texts.
Great care is taken in the setting of the paper to eradicate this but costly mistakes continue to
be made.
Q.1
This question only required the candidates to read three paragraphs of the text by Adam
Edwards and then to answer a two-part question which was essentially ‘search and
find’, although there was a requirement to be precise. The questions followed the
sequence of the passage and the answers were marked as a whole, although the better
responses avoided a confused jumble of material and organised the answer into two
clear paragraphs which were clear and coherent.
The reasons why the fox became so popular were straightforward enough and most
candidates saw that the animal, which had long been regarded as vermin, had a change
of image in the twentieth century and was seen as ‘lovable’ and ‘cute’. John Masefield’s
poem, ‘Reynard the Fox’, also played an important role in encouraging a compassionate
view of the fox and the animal benefited from a successful public relations campaign
which included advertisers presenting him as ‘an amusing fellow’ and Disney sealing his
‘heroic status’ as Robin Hood in a cartoon version of the story.
According to Adam Edwards, the fox has become so common in towns because it has
been protected by the Animal Liberation Front, by charities and animal lovers and,
finally, by the law. He has found shelter in urban gardens and there is plenty of food in
towns from bins near fast-food shops. The fox has also got used to and has adapted to
the ways of the town. He has also got used to traffic and has no predators, except man.
This was not a particularly difficult question and those who followed the text and were
reasonably selective in their choice of material scored very well. Some assumed that
‘common’ and ‘popular’ were synonyms, which is not really true. Others were not
precise and merged ideas in a way that was not quite right. A surprising number thought
Basil Brush was a Disney character and some thought a fox had gained immeasurably
from its appearance on ‘X Factor’. Some thought that foxes were protected by ‘the
army’, although I suspect they have more important things to do.
However, those who tracked through the text and kept an eye on the question did well.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
7
Q.2
This question focused on how Adam Edwards used the rest of his article to turn his
readers against the fox by presenting a very different image of Reynard.
Candidates could make good progress by looking closely at the detail of what he said
about the fox and even more if they took at least some opportunities to explain or
comment on those details and show some understanding of authorial method. There
was a wealth of material here and a lot of it was fairly obvious. The best answers also
responded to his choice of language and made some attempt to address the issue of
‘how’ by commenting on the persuasive methods he used. Weak answers see this
merely as an opportunity to indulge in a relentless hunt for technical jargon and remain
vague and unconvincingly assertive as they just offer ‘the naming of parts’ rather than
genuine exploration of persuasive technique. For example, one candidate tried to claim
that Edwards turned his readers against foxes by using ‘simple punctuation but
advanced vocabulary’ without any attempt to exemplify these perceived language
features. However, there was less of the aimless ‘device spotting’ this year and this
perhaps was because the candidates were too busy with the text to get lost in prepared
theory.
This question was really quite straightforward and the detail and the methods were fairly
obvious. Adam Edwards began this section of the text by insisting that the fox had
‘casually’ thrown away his ‘burnished image’, although some gave the game away in
attempting to explain this when they clearly did not understand it. However, very few
missed the point that he tried to prove his point by reminding his readers of the attack
on baby twins. He used the word ‘mauled’ to emphasise the severity of the attack and
suggested this showed that Basil Brush had a ‘beastly’ side to his nature. Some
candidates pushed on to mention that this incident was particularly shocking because of
the innocence of the babies. He then branded the lovable fox a ‘feral chav’ and most
candidates expressed their disgust at his tendency to ‘breed indiscriminately’ and ‘feed
off discarded buckets of KFC.’
Edwards then listed the crimes of the urban fox and these included very specific
examples, including attacks on children and pets. He described the fox as a serial killer
who kills ‘For fun.’ This illustrated the difference between those who offer ‘formulaic’
analysis, for example, ‘the writer uses ‘short sentences’ to turn the reader against the
fox’ and those who look closely and specifically at the detail of the text ‘the writer uses
the blunt, minor sentence ‘For fun’ to highlight or emphasise the fact that the fox kills for
pleasure’. Words such as ‘mauled’ and ‘savagely’ were used to demonise the fox and
the history of the fox in the Bible, in folklore and children’s literature was used to remind
the reader of his reputation as a cunning thief.
The candidates have limited time and it is not possible to cover everything in a text.
However, the best answers do see the underlying approach and they make a sensible
selection of content and language choices, pausing when appropriate to comment or
explain. That is as much as anyone can expect from them. There seemed to be a
greater number of impressive answers than to similar questions set in the past.
Q.3
Attention now turned to the on-line article by Stephen Harris and the analysis of how he
tried to show that the urban fox has found a place ‘in our hearts’. The advice to ‘track
through the text’ was certainly intended to be helpful here and the better answers
followed the text and the argument, focusing precisely on the question. The problem for
many candidates was that they were answering a different question from the one I had
actually set. Too many tried to show ‘why’ the fox deserved a place in our affections
rather than show how the writer had tried to prove that he had won our hearts. In effect,
this question was merely asking how the writer shows us that we like foxes.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
8
The heading suggested that the fox is a ‘so-called’ pest, questioning the assumption
that the fox is vermin, and he went on to claim that secretly we ‘love’ these animals and
that any apparent hostility is ‘just an act’. He insisted that we ‘adore’ them and used the
example of how we react to seeing a fox to prove his point. He claimed that we ‘marvel’
at foxes when we see them. He did use words such as ‘resourceful’ and ‘intelligent’ to
describe the fox but the answer to the question lay in the use of ‘marvel’ because that
showed our appreciation of those qualities.
He described them as ‘thoroughly at home’ in our towns and suggested they are a ‘little
bit of countryside’ which has come to town, painting a very cosy and appealing picture
of foxes and our feelings towards them.
Professor Harris tried to prove his case by pointing out that half of the urban fox’s food is
deliberately left out for them by humans. He also claimed that one in ten households
regularly feed foxes, using that startling statistic to prove our close relationship with
them.
He used the example of the woman in Bristol to make the relationship between humans
and foxes seem mutually affectionate. He devoted quite a lot of space to this anecdote
to show just how close the woman was to the fox as she ‘cuddled’ it and let it sleep in
her lap. Those who dwelt a little on this episode were suitably rewarded.
He stressed how ‘at home’ foxes are in our cities and how ‘relaxed’ when we see them.
The mention of the ‘wonderful’ picture of the fox on the escalator reinforced this
argument and showed just how accepted they have become by humans, although this
point was sometimes noted but infrequently well explained. He concluded by describing
our relationship with foxes as a ‘love affair’.
There was a lot of factual detail and ‘loaded’ language here but only the most able
candidates kept their focus on the question and saw the stress on the closeness of the
relationship with humans. Some candidates could not settle at all but most were at least
‘in and out’ of the question. The weakest answers were thin and unselective or simply,
and, aimlessly, spotting devices.
Q.4
It is a requirement to ask a question to test the candidates’ ability to make comparisons
or collate information from different sources but the instructions in the question are an
attempt to help by giving a clear structure and focus for the answers. Some of us
remember what it was like to try to disentangle the responses produced by the bald
command to ‘compare and contrast’ two texts and the use of bullet points to give
direction and shape to the task has changed things for the better. That said, some
candidates do ignore the instruction, and indeed sometimes the question. This question
does not usually require a lengthy answer but it does require clear thinking and some
conceptual grasp of two texts.
The first paragraph asked for comparison of the two writers’ views of the threat posed by
foxes to humans and the overview was absolutely clear. Adam Edwards suggested that
the fox is a very significant threat to humans. It is particularly a threat to children and he
cited two examples of attacks on a baby and a young girl. He also mentioned the threat
to adults, specifically the woman who had her ear ‘savagely bitten while sleeping’. He
used words such as ‘mauled’ and ‘savagely’ to stress the ferocity of the fox and the
scale of the threat it poses to humans. In contrast, Stephen Harris dismissed the threat
posed by foxes, suggesting they ‘occasionally’ take a ‘curious nip’ at a baby but cause
‘no serious injuries’. He also played down the threat of the fox by claiming that they are
far less dangerous to children than dogs. A clear sense of the writers’ general view with
some apt supporting detail secured a lot of marks here and it could be done succinctly.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
9
The second paragraph changed the focus to the threat to animals but the contrast was
again simple enough. Adam Edwards presented the fox as a vicious predator,
indiscriminately killing other animals and doing so ‘For fun.’ He gave examples such as
killing captive penguins at London zoo and decapitating flamingos belonging to the
Queen. He also mentioned the threat to domestic pets such as rabbits. Stephen Harris
admitted that foxes eat worms, insects and rats and the ‘occasional’ small pet such as a
rabbit, a guinea-pig or even a kitten, if they have been ‘inadequately protected’.
However, the tone of his article suggested only a minor threat to other animals.
This question was an opportunity to score well and those who had managed their time
well and followed the instructions in the question did just that. Some saved themselves
in this question but those who ignored the rubric, or failed to answer the question at all,
spoiled some promising, earlier work.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
10
UNIT 2 (Writing)
The choice of tasks in this unit of a formal letter and a tourist guide seemed fair enough in
giving the candidates plenty of opportunity to show what they could do.
The idea of a guide gave the candidates some room for manoeuvre as they could write
something that was close to a leaflet or the sort of travel guide that appears in books,
newspapers and magazines. The writing had to inform and persuade but the candidates could
model their answer on something like the Sheffield leaflet from the 2006 paper or use a firstperson approach along the lines of the piece on Manchester by Max Davidson which I used last
year. Different approaches or formats were perfectly acceptable.
It was clear that candidates knew a lot about talent shows. In some scripts, this actually had
serious consequences as the candidates got so carried away with writing about every detail of
every talent show that they left too little time for the tourist guide. The temptation to write at
inordinate length about Simon Cowell and all his works proved irresistible to some and it was
sometimes at the expense of the guide where, ironically, they probably needed more time.
Time is not such a pressing issue in this unit and it makes sense for the candidates to take a
minute or two to plan their writing before plunging into the tasks. The organisation of ideas
requires some planning and there is no need to rush into these tasks. The assessment takes
into account the ability to ‘engage the reader’ and rewards ‘cohesion and overall coherence’
and more thought and planning might have improved the outcomes significantly.
The rubric made it very clear that they should think about purpose, audience and format but
care must also be taken with sentence construction, spelling and punctuation and the
candidates should remember that one third of the available credit is allocated to this part of the
assessment objective.
Q.1
This task required a formal letter to a newspaper and it was sensible for most
candidates to argue on one or other side of the argument to maintain a sense of
direction and clarity. Those who tried to explore both sides of the argument, or express
‘mixed views’, risked slipping into confusion and contradiction but the able candidates
knew how to handle alternative opinions without sacrificing cohesion and overall
coherence.
The candidates seemed to enjoy this task and many of them wrote at length and with
some life. The topic obviously engaged the interest of most candidates and these ‘talent’
shows are clearly, and deeply, embedded into modern culture. The fascination of
teenagers with the quest for celebrity status seems almost boundless and most
candidates had detailed knowledge of these shows, and no shortage of opinions about
them. I am also now an expert on the subject. I know the names of the winners going
back several years and I have very strong opinions based entirely on second-hand
knowledge!
Some saw these shows as essentially the ‘theatre of cruelty’ or the modern version of a
freak show, offering the ritual humiliation of the deluded for the entertainment of the rest
of us. However, there were plenty of those who saw the opportunity to become famous,
successful and wealthy as irresistible. Both sides had a lot of specific examples to use in
support of their argument and the combination of knowledge and strong opinions
produced some very successful writing. The responses were often very interesting, not
least because they revealed as much about the teenage writers, and modern culture, as
they did about talent shows.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
11
Weaker answers simply described the workings of talent shows or merely repeated the
points made in the question. Some tried to handle both sides of the argument but just
got themselves into a tangle of contradictory views. Some responses discussed the
issues comprehensively but with no real sense of cohesion or direction. A minority of
candidates also misjudged the audience for this letter and wrote to Simon Cowell or the
producers of the talent shows. It is perhaps also worth mentioning that implausible
surveys and exaggerated percentages do not help an argument at all. Indeed
unconvincing statistics usually achieve the opposite of the intended effect.
I think some work is needed on the conventions of letters to newspapers. Many of the
openings were clumsy and naive and too many candidates started to demand that the
editor write an article or join a crusade against these talent shows. They often finished
by suggesting that they were waiting for a reply. There is probably no better way to
ensure that a letter is not published than to start telling a newspaper editor what to do.
Some attention also needs to be paid to the layout of letters. It is not the most important
issue but it is a useful skill to be able to set out a letter properly. Careless errors in
layout are often symptomatic of a casual attitude to accuracy which I would not wish to
encourage.
Q.2
Although there were good responses to this task, in general I was disappointed by the
outcomes. The task seemed to provide a lot of scope in terms of style and content but
many failed to produce the interesting work I expected. I often feel that I learn a lot from
the candidates but this year I learned much more about talent shows than I did about
the tourist hotspots of Britain.
The candidates had to think and make some decisions for themselves and not everyone
thought carefully or chose wisely.
First, they had to choose a town or city which would be attractive to tourists. However,
many candidates made poor choices and tried to attract tourists to the most unlikely
destinations. It is true that not everyone lives in a tourist ‘hotspot’ but no-one lives very
far away from somewhere that might attract visitors and most places can be sold in one
way or another. Most cities, and a lot of towns, sell themselves quite effectively as
places for weekend or short breaks. At times the choices made by the candidates
seemed perverse. For example, those who lived in the suburbs of cities such as
London, Leeds and Cardiff chose to write about their small, residential area and made
life very difficult for themselves. A moment’s thought could have made a significant
difference to a lot of the answers.
The second problem was how to sell their chosen destination to a potential tourist. The
key to this task was a clear understanding of the purpose of the writing. This was a
guide intended to attract tourists and the content and style had to reflect that purpose.
Many candidates found difficulty in getting beyond the limits of their own expectations,
so local shops, cinemas, fast food outlets or fish and chip shops figured large in their
guides. This misjudging of the intended audience extended, sometimes, to references to
which was the best school in the area or where the best houses could be found. Some
even extolled the virtues of local gym membership schemes, libraries or even being able
to pay monthly for unlimited cinema access – all of which emphasised their uncertainties
regarding audience.
There was often a lot of vague enthusiasm for places but a depressing lack of
knowledge about what might attract a visitor and a real shortage of specific attractions.
For example, Brighton without a mention of its Pavilion, or Lytham without the golf
course or Cambridge without the glories of its university did seem like Hamlet without
the prince.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
12
Extravagant claims about ‘endless opportunities’ for a fun-filled holiday were usually not
delivered with any conviction, if at all. However, some candidates defined their audience
quite carefully and that often helped. For example, a resort such as Blackpool
unashamedly appeals to certain groups of people while a resort such as Llandudno
does not sell itself as the ‘Ibiza of Wales’ but undoubtedly has appeal for families and
those of a certain age, as an examination paper of some years ago amply
demonstrated! Some thought about the exact nature of a resort’s appeal would have
helped a lot of candidates to avoid unconvincing assertions and stay in a recognisable
reality. The key was to think about the details that set a place apart and made it
distinctive. Some partly saved their pieces by making a genuine attempt to be upbeat
and it was sad when they did not seem to have much to be enthusiastic about. I
suppose the best advice I can offer to the candidates is that they think their way in to
these tasks. Too many clearly do rush at it without any thought at all.
Careful, thoughtful selection is everything here. Often candidates lost great
opportunities in listing all manner of ‘attractions’ but not thinking about their audience or
separating the genuinely attractive from the commonplace.
I have mentioned the issue of technical accuracy many times in my reports and it is still
a cause for concern. There are no discernible signs of improvement in this key aspect of
the work and I am sorry to say that it really is not uncommon to see scripts, even on this
tier, which are littered with technical errors. Many of the errors are very basic and cannot
be ignored or dismissed merely as ‘slips’. Most candidates would be well advised to
remember that technical accuracy contributes one third of the marks in writing.
The best responses are always a pleasure to read and they display sophistication,
maturity and technical control but too many of the candidates undermine their efforts
with a lack of attention to content, organisation and technical accuracy.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
13
CONTROLLED ASSESSMENT
General Comments
Virtually all centres handled the administrative aspects well, though there were occasions when
errors were made. The new version of ‘Checklist for sample folders’ available on the WJEC
website and sent by moderators with the introductory letters is a useful reminder of what needs
to be done before despatching the folders to the moderators. Obviously the introduction of the
new Specifications has increased the workload since now centres have to provide samples
from each Specification attempted by students within the centre whereas before only one set of
folders was required. We appreciate the hard work which goes into ensuring that all the details
are correct.
However, there are occasions when errors are made. The one which worries moderators the
most is the incorrect entry of marks on the Mark Input system. When spotted, moderators will
report the matter to WJEC so that appropriate changes can be made but since we only see a
small proportion of the entry there may well be occasions when corrections are not made.
Obviously this could result in an inappropriate grade for a student. I feel it is an onerous task for
any member of staff to have to check the mark entry but I also think, in the interests of your
students, it is a necessary one.
For the first time, students were allowed only limited ‘notes’ for their Reading and Literature
work. In some centres, the decision had been made that the students were better off without
such aids. This is a perfectly legitimate approach but I would urge teachers to ensure that it is
noted on the coversheet of the work. Otherwise, moderators will presume, understandably, that
the centre has forgotten to include the notes and will have to request them.
The actual content of the notes varied greatly. Some assiduous students covered their one side
of A4 with miniscule writing (well over 1400 words in one case) while others simply jotted down
a few page numbers and quotations. I suspect that in most cases the quality of the notes the
students prepared had very little effect on the outcomes. However, as ‘comfort blankets’ they
probably served a turn. Moderators were alert though for anything which looked like a plan
since the specification does not permit this. Moderators were also instructed to look out for
occasions when the notes seemed to be teacher inspired rather than genuinely the student’s
own work. The use of scaffolding and worksheets is not acceptable in the controlled
assessment.
There were occasions when the notes were far too detailed and when this occurred it was
necessary to refer a number of such occasions to WJEC for investigation. The Teacher Guide
on WJEC’s website has examples of suitable and unsuitable notes. It is important that the
guidelines are taken into consideration when checking the students’ notes since inappropriate
approaches could lead to the student losing the marks for the piece of work.
Some centres allowed students’ notes for the Writing tasks. This is not permitted by the
specification.
The administrative rules for Controlled Assessment also require that the students only have one
attempt at a particular task. It is perfectly acceptable for them to redo a piece but it must be on
a different task. Sadly we did find evidence that in some centres, students had been allowed to
make two attempts at the same task with the benefit of the teacher’s comments on the first
attempt. Where there was proof of this, the matter had to be dealt with by WJEC’s Malpractice
Committee.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
14
Moderators are always disturbed when they receive work which does not appear to have been
marked. It is a requirement of all the Specifications that there be in-text and summative
commentary on the Reading and Literature work and that in the Writing sections, errors are
flagged up. It is difficult to see how an accurate assessment of the SSPS element can be
reached without noting errors in the Writing work.
If a scribe is used in Controlled Assessment writing tasks, then deductions should be made as
happens in the examination papers. These are laid out by the JCQ. Many moderators noted
that such deductions did not appear to have been made.
There are time limits for all the Controlled Assessment tasks- as required by the regulatory
body. Some moderators were worried when students produced hugely long pieces (for
example, 15 closely written pages for a single writing task) since they seemed to suggest that
the time limit had not been observed.
Sadly the advent of Controlled Assessment has not completely eradicated plagiarism and a
number of students were discovered to have downloaded essays from the internet, presumably
stored them on their centre sites and then simply cut and pasted them during the assessment
session. Again it is important that centres be vigilant. Having said this, there was a significant
drop in the number of plagiarism issues dealt with by WJEC this year.
It is most helpful to moderators if the samples for each Specification are packed separately.
Sometimes, if the same student was chosen as part of both the English Language and the
English Literature sample the two sets of essays were kept together so the moderator was
searching for the work.
Some of the problems familiar from the past also re-emerged:








‘Split’ marks applied to Reading and Literature tasks.
Work not in coversheet order.
Transcripts of the material studied in the Spoken Language Study work not included
with the folders.
Over-complicated packaging.
Coversheet details not completed.
Coversheets not signed by both the student and teacher (Signing the sheets by both is
a regulatory requirement).
The late despatch of the work to the moderator with no explanation.
Incorrect addition of marks on the coversheet.
In the early part of this report, I have concentrated on the problems, the things that have gone
wrong, but I must stress that most centres got the administrative aspects completely correct
and for this we are grateful.
In most centres the work was handwritten. This is hardly surprising given that it would appear
that many centres organised for the assessment sessions to take place in a hall. In some
centres the work was accompanied by a note listing the actual times and dates of the
assessment sessions. I thought this was a good way of keeping track of the whole complex
business.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
15
GCSE English (not available in Wales)
It is perhaps not surprising that the middle and lower ability students generally attempted this
specification (although by no means exclusively) and there was evidence that there had been
some movement between the Language and Literature combination to the single English
course. Having said this, I do not believe that it is an ‘easy option’. The demands of the
Shakespeare/poetry task are great and many students found the Writing tasks difficult
whichever Specification they attempted.
Shakespeare/poetry
It is obvious that the Shakespeare/poetry linked piece will take some time to bed in and it would
be arrogant of me to think I had all the answers. I was pleasingly surprised by the variety of
approach and engagement evident in many of the essays. The two themes for the academic
years ending 2012 and 2013 (there are new themes for the 2014 cohort available on the secure
website), ‘Conflict’ and ‘Male/Female Relationships’, gave ample opportunity for teachers to
shape the task to the perceived strengths of the students. They were about equally popular and
the most favoured texts were, unsurprisingly, Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet. Approaches to
the conflict theme included: the conflict between Macbeth and his wife; Macbeth’s internal
conflict regarding killing Duncan; the external conflict early in the play; conflict between Juliet
and her parents; the feud, including the different perceptions of the conflict between the two
families; the protagonists’ internal conflicts about betraying their families by getting married. In
other plays, students looked at Hamlet’s conflict of conscience; conflict in Henry V between the
French and English and within the court of the monarch; familial conflict in the opening of King
Lear; conflict between the lovers in the central scenes on A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The
best responses showed the ability to range through the chosen play text without losing sight of
the detail.
The male/female relationships theme was often interpreted rather more narrowly as ‘love’ but
this was perfectly acceptable. Macbeth made fewer appearances here, though there were
students who looked at the relationship between Macbeth and his wife. Most, though, chose to
work on Romeo and Juliet with the protagonists’ relationship examined from all angles as well
as the father/daughter relationship of the Capulets. This latter approach made it difficult for the
students to link in with the poetry chosen from the selection, which was generally about adult
relationships particularly connected to marital issues. In some centres the male/female
relationships theme was interpreted simply as ‘relationships’. This opened the door to students
looking at the Nurse in relation to Juliet and the Friar, Romeo. This was an incorrect
interpretation of the task.
There was a wider range of Shakespeare texts in the work on male/female relationships. Work
on ‘dominance’ in The Taming of the Shrew impressed and there were some interesting
examinations of the relationships in Twelfth Night and A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Much Ado
about Nothing, with the concentration on the Beatrice and Benedict’s ‘merry war’, also figured in
a number of centres and this seemed a particularly successful approach.
Generally the work on Shakespeare was reasonably attempted though in a number of centres
there was a heavy reliance on narrative driven approaches which did not give sufficient
emphasis to the ‘thematic’ aspect of the tasks. As always, the high marks went to those who
could analyse language in relation to the way Shakespeare presents the theme.
Sometimes moderators felt that the work was focused on too narrow a section of text (for
example, the Prologue to Romeo and Juliet). Students are more likely to be able to access the
assessment criteria by looking at sections of text, in detail, in the Shakespeare play. However,
at the same time they do need to be able to refer to the rest of the play to cover the requirement
for the study of a whole text. Too narrow a focus will limit the students’ opportunities. On the
other hand, a narrative approach often results from an attempt at too wide a coverage. There
needs to be a balance here.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
16
It was pleasing to see a wide range of poems studied from the two selections. In the ‘Conflict’
work, ‘Dulce et Decorum Est’ and ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ were both very popular (as,
of course, they were in the legacy specification coursework). This is not in the least bit
surprising. Both are fine poems with accessible content and both provide the student with
plenty to write about. I was a little surprised to see that some students felt that Tennyson was
pro-conflict and glorifying martial sacrifice when he, in the process of honouring the dead, was
probably more critical of the waste than initially appears. There may not be all that much to
divide this poem from Owen’s.
Students entered for GCSE English generally chose to write about the more accessible poems
on the list with ‘The Man He Killed’, ‘Drummer Hodge’ and ‘The Hero’ as well as the two noted
above all being popular. There were very few examples of work on Dylan Thomas’s ‘A Refusal
to Mourn’, which is hardly surprising given its level of difficulty. Thomas did, however, make an
appearance in the GCSE English Literature Shakespeare/poetry work.
The main issue with work on this theme was that students were often content to describe the
content rather than think about how the writers present it. There were many perfectly
acceptable accounts of, for example, the fight scenes in Romeo and Juliet but when it came to
writing about how Shakespeare uses language to portray the conflict the work was less certain.
As in the Legacy Specification, the high marks always go to those who can investigate
language.
The most popular choices of poetry for the second theme were ‘Valentine’, ‘Cousin Kate’, ‘A
Woman to Her Lover’ and ‘A Married State’. Work on these verses was generally good with
some grasp of how the various writers presented relationships.
Many students, successfully, followed the tripartite structure suggested in the Teacher Guide on
the WJEC website. It is important that the poems are given due consideration before the
student attempts to make linking points. Those who launched straight into attempts to make
links generally did not write sufficient on the poems and their work suffered as a result. This
part of the Controlled Assessment covers two texts, the Shakespeare play and the selection of
poetry which also counts as a ‘text’ and it is important that they receive equal consideration in
order to produce balanced responses. The marks for those students who wrote extensively
about Shakespeare but only attempted a short section on the poetry suffered as a result.
The final ‘linking’ section of the tripartite structure generally received some attention but, as in
the Legacy Specification ‘comparative’ work, this proved to be the most difficult aspect for the
students.
Sometimes the linking section was confined to picking up very simple similarities between the
texts. For example, one student wrote that Walsh’s poem and Lady Macbeth were linked
because they both mention babies. Another stated that a link between ‘Valentine’ and Romeo
and Juliet was that both mentioned ‘tears’. Such links really were not very strong and did not
advance the cause of the student greatly. Students could consider a number of issues in this
section of their work. These include: content; situation; social aspects; attitudes and moods;
language usage; characters; feelings.
It was, also, pleasing to see that some of the rather arid prosodic approaches to the study of
poetry were less evident. Line counting and rhyme scheme examination did not figure large and
there seemed to be less desire to write about punctuation.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
17
Occasionally, students chose to write about poems which were not from the selections listed on
the secure website. Some wrote about poems that were not even in the WJEC Poetry
Collection. Obviously they were not penalised for this but it is important that the right set of
poems are studied. It was clear too, that those who chose to write about four plus poems
generally did not provide sufficient detail to gain high marks. It is better to concentrate on fewer
and delve more deeply.
It is worth reminding centres that the social/historical/cultural aspect of the Assessment
Objectives (AO4) is not tested in the Shakespeare/poetry work. Obviously such issues will
come into the study of any literature but too much emphasis on them could mean that other
aspects are neglected.
In the original Teacher Guidance in the Board’s GCSE English website pages, I suggested
some word length guidance. Having seen the outcomes for the Shakespeare/poetry work, it
would seem that the most able students are writing far more than I originally envisaged. This is
perfectly acceptable. There is no penalty for exceeding the suggested word ‘limits’.
Different Cultures prose
In the Different Cultures prose section of the folder, unsurprisingly, the majority of work was
based on either Of Mice and Men or To Kill a Mockingbird. In this section of the folder students
are required to write about either character or theme and the large majority chose to write about
characters in Of Mice and Men. This was familiar ground in many ways since this text has been
on the English Literature set book list for many years and teachers are obviously comfortable
introducing it to a new generation of students. The most popular choices for character study
were Curley's wife and Crooks though George and Lennie plus Candy and Slim also made a
fair number of appearances. Work was generally pleasing though some students could not
quite distinguish the authorial voice from the characters’ when writing about Curley's wife
especially in the early stages of the book. Perhaps Candy’s view is not fully Steinbeck’s. It is
important that students back up their views with clear reference to the text. Some of the weaker
candidates relied on assertion.
Work on To Kill a Mockingbird centred mostly around Atticus and here some students
encountered a problem of scale. The wise ones limited the range of their area of study either by
looking at a section of the text or by focusing in on a particular relationship (e.g. with Scout,
Jem or Tom Robinson). While in the Legacy coursework structure, where students had in effect
unlimited time, it was possible for students to produce a well rounded consideration of the
whole of Atticus’s character, in the time constrained Controlled Assessment structure this
approach led to generalised, often narrative driven accounts which did not give the students
access to the full range of assessment criteria.
Work on the other texts was rare though students in some centres considered the theme of
secrets in Chanda’s Secrets and racism in Anita and Me. Both tasks worked well and made a
refreshing change from the almost universal Of Mice and Men.
Writing
I was impressed by the range, creativity and poignancy of many responses. In the best cases
the writing was natural, unforced, well-crafted, personal and sometimes deeply moving. It would
seem that taking away the spontaneity produced by the legacy examination has not damaged
the outcomes. Giving students the opportunity to think about their responses seems to have
allowed them greater control of their work.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
18
How the two hours are broken up for the two pieces is in the control of centres though it would
seem sensible to give the students an hour for each of the writing types. This seemed to be the
preferred approach in most centres. On occasions where the students had been expected to
complete both pieces within a two-hour time slot, there was evidence that the second one
attempted (usually the Third person piece) suffered as a result. While it is against the
regulations for the Specification for students to have two attempts at the same task, it is
perfectly permissible for them to have a practice run at a task not on the list. Since this piece
may not be entered within the folder, it is acceptable for it to be marked and returned to the
students.
The specification stipulates that the students have no access to spell-checkers etc. had a
dramatic effect on the SSPS element of the marks. There was good evidence that even the
brighter students were struggling to maintain high standards of accuracy. Proof reading has
always been an important skill and now, with the introduction of SPAG assessments in other
GCSE specifications, it has become even more relevant for the 16 year-old examination
candidate. I am convinced that a short time spent checking work would allow students to
remove many of the more obvious errors (agreement issues and tense consistency seem to be
the most obvious along with, of course, the ubiquitous comma splicing). I am also aware of how
difficult it is to persuade students of the value of such activity.
First Person Writing
The range of tasks in the First Person Writing selection seemed to give the students plenty of
opportunity for originality. As always, the students who performed best were the ones who
avoided action driven narratives and instead concentrated on how events affected feelings and
relationships. First person writing encourages the students to rely on their own experiences for
material and thus gives them the opportunity to think about shaping the narrative for the
pleasure of the reader. The wise ones chose a simple incident and looked at it closely,
establishing character and feelings. Complex narrative structures are difficult to handle in the
time allowed. Happily there were very few occasions when the student failed to finish the work
within the time limitation.
The only task which did not attract many supporters was the one about volunteering. Otherwise
the students were about equally spread across the other tasks. They could, of course, also
choose from the GCSE English Language list of narratives and there was good evidence that
the amount of choice given worked in their favour. The ‘envelope’ task led to some entertaining
accounts of lottery wins and surprise chances though there were also darker issues covered
like the arrival of bad news about a health problem or contact for an adopted child from a birth
mother. ‘My most special moment’ attracted a great deal of attention with some delightful tales
of the birth of a sibling, outings with loved ones and scoring the winning goal. In these accounts
there was often an honesty of approach which made the work all the more convincing. The
‘furious Mrs Jones’ task gave the students ample opportunity to recount days when nothing
went right though sometimes engineering the conclusion so that Mrs Jones figured in it was
awkwardly done.
Third Person writing
There is good evidence to suggest that students find this type of writing more difficult given that
the authorial stance needs to encompass more than one position/viewpoint and so on. The
story opening and closing tasks proved to be very popular. Both gave the students the basic
emotional response (concern about a problem and shame) which allowed the students to draw
on personal experience and many did this to great effect. The ‘difficult situation’ and ‘Prize’
tasks were less popular probably because there needed to be more imaginative input at the
planning stage. Work on the ‘Valentine’ task sometimes reflected the contents of the Duffy
poem which some had studied for the Shakespeare/poetry task. There were some rather
mawkish romantic stories on the task but there were also some delightful tales of teenage
angst. The most able could stand outside the narrative and view it with an authorial voice.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
19
Assessment
In many cases the assessments were fair and sensible. However, in the Shakespeare/poetry
piece some work was overvalued when there was an imbalance between the aspects covered.
There does need to be a consideration of all three parts of the task for high marks to be
awarded. More often than not it was the poetry and the linking section that were rather
overlooked. When this was not acknowledged, the marking was generous. Generally,
assessments for the Different Cultures prose work were more accurate which is unsurprising
given that teachers are more familiar with this type of essay. In the Writing work, it was not
uncommon for the SSPS element to be optimistically treated. It is important, as noted above,
that errors are flagged up as this gives a much clearer picture of the general accuracy. It was
worrying, too, when relatively high marks were given to rather brief work. The word ‘sustained’
comes into the Assessment Criteria in Band 3 so it is unlikely that extremely brief work will gain
a mark higher than 7 for this aspect of the assessment. It was not unusual for there to be
inflation in both aspects of the mark with kind treatment in the Content and Organisation section
for stories where there really was not a great deal of cohesion or pace.
GCSE English Language
Extended Literary Text
Text choices have to be made from the Shakespeare canon or the GCSE English Literature
prose and drama set text lists with the tasks based on either character or the creation of mood/
atmosphere. Thus it was possible for students to choose to write about a text they were
studying for the externally assessed Units of the Literature course. This seemed to have a
pleasing impact on the standard of work presented and it gave the students the opportunity to
write at greater length and in more detail than in the inevitably rather rushed examination
situation. Many centres took the opportunity to choose texts which would allow the student to
move from a Language/Literature combination to GCSE English and thus many responses
were on Different Cultures texts. I have commented on the responses to this assignment
above. It must be noted, however, that the assessment criteria for the two Specifications are
slightly different so if the work is moved from one Specification to the other, then it will need to
be reappraised in the light of the appropriate assessment criteria.
Those not writing on a Different Cultures text were more likely to stick to the set text list than
taking advantage of the wider ‘any Shakespeare play’. There was some interesting work,
however, on other Shakespeare plays, including Hamlet, Coriolanus, and Titus Andronicus
along with a handful of comedies including Twelfth Night, As You Like It and A Midsummer
Night’s Dream. Otherwise, An Inspector Calls, Heroes, About a Boy, Blood Brothers, A
Christmas Carol and Lord of the Flies all appeared in the Extended Literary text section, though
rarely. I hope that over time there will be a wider range of texts chosen.
Writing
Many of the comments I have made about Writing in the GCSE English report are relevant here
also.
Most centres allowed the students 45 minutes to complete the Descriptive writing and an hour
and a quarter for the narrative work. This seemed a sensible solution. When the time allowance
had been split equally between the two parts, I got the impression that the students were
struggling to fill the time in the descriptive work while being short of time in the narrative essay.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
20
It was perfectly permissible for students to use titles taken from the GCSE English list when
choosing their tasks. Generally, it was clear that students had been given a free choice of task
but in some centres they had all been given a single title irrespective of whether or not it was
one that inspired them. I felt this to be a limiting approach. More commonly an entire class
within a centre attempted the same task and this too, I felt, was less than desirable. This is the
only part of the course where the students can be allowed some autonomy and it is a pity if they
don’t get to exercise some personal choice.
Descriptive Writing
The range of tasks seemed to give all the students an opportunity to write about a scene with
which they were familiar. The length of the work varied from half a side to three sides. The
former was obviously self-limiting while the latter could be considered to be overlong for a
focused response. Generally the work was about two hand-written sides long, which seemed to
me to be perfectly acceptable.
The funfair, with the opportunities it provides for colourful and lively descriptive detail, was the
most popular task though there were many telling descriptions of beach scenes and
supermarkets.
The trick for success in this type of writing lies in the detail, as my colleagues Ken Elliott and
Ted Snell have been preaching for years. Generalised responses (‘Around the school gate
there were lots of parents…’) which are not followed up by detailed investigation are likely to be
low scoring.
Ambition is always a good thing but the more able students can be led into abstruse and
unauthentic approaches if they try to be too clever. This was often apparent in this type of
writing, the main characteristics of which should be realism, consistency and clarity. The desire
to overload the work with ‘advanced’ vocabulary often resulted in sentences that made little
sense or which sounded unnatural and forced. Similarly, the use of imagery should be carefully
controlled. Among the less able, similes were more often than not clichéd while in the work of
the more able they were sometimes so remote as to be impenetrable. As I have said, ambition
is a good thing but the outcome should be a piece which is transparent and enjoyable to read.
Those following a self-imposed rule that every noun must have at least one adjective and every
verb required an adverb did not do well since their work became unnatural and unconvincing.
The best work was from students who wrote clearly, used imagery sparingly and did not follow
a list of things that were considered to be essential in descriptive writing. One or two centres
rather gave the game away by including such a list. Students were expected to include: semicolons, colons, alliteration, assonance, metaphors, similes, tripling, personification,
onomatopoeia and so on. I must emphasise that there is no such checklist in the mind of
moderators. They simply want to see detailed, engaging and natural writing that allows them to
visualise the scene.
The verbless sentence remains an issue, as it was when in the Legacy Specification this type of
writing formed part of Section B in Paper 1. The use of minor sentences should be strictly
controlled given that the SSPS mark is partly awarded on the basis of sentence structures.
Moderators saw entire pieces where participles replaced finite verbs (‘Children running to their
parents.’) Obviously this reduced the marks. It seemed curious to moderators that this linguistic
inadequacy was only found in the descriptive writing. A student could write a complete
description without a finite verb and then produce a perfectly lucid and mechanically accurate
narrative.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
21
Lack of attention to task was also a problem for some students. This weakness often
accompanied a narrative approach and work in the First Person though it sometimes was the
result of describing aspects of the scene which could be considered peripheral to the main
thrust. Thus there were lengthy descriptions of clouds and sunshine, rain and wind which had
little direct relevance to the chosen task. In extreme cases, the actual place was hardly
discernible from the extraneous detail chosen.
The very best work created believable scenes with good detailed descriptions of places and
people with an overarching coherence.
Narrative Writing
The most popular choice in this section was ‘Only my Mum could embarrass me like that’. This
task provided ample opportunities for students to rail against the injustices all too apparent in
their view of teenage life. The best were replete with wry humour, a clear sense of character
and plenty of feelings and were most enjoyable to read. ‘Hero’ led to some action driven war
stories (often, and understandably, based in Afghanistan) which were usually less convincing.
There was a stark contrast between these pieces, where the students were writing outside their
immediate experience, and those involving embarrassment and Mum. I appreciate that it is
extremely difficult to dissuade some students from taking an action approach to narrative
writing but it does limit them sometimes.
‘Appearing on stage’ responses were often excellent. Again, there was a clear reliance on
personal dramatic experience and those who chose this task could relay the agony of nerves
and tension very well, often with proud mums in attendance. There was also some delightful
work on the ‘Test’ task including devastatingly honest accounts of cheating in examinations.
The open ended ‘She realised it was a mistake as soon as she turned the corner’ task attracted
a large number of takers but here it was necessary to create a plot almost from scratch. There
were a number of disturbing stories emanating from this task and it clearly gave some of the
more able students, particularly the girls, an opportunity to write serious and mature narratives
about matters that clearly concerned them.
Generally students did well in this section of the folder, a reflection, perhaps, of the familiarity of
the task and appropriate approaches.
Assessment
In the Extended Literary text section, assessments were generally reliable with due
consideration to the Assessment Criteria. Again this is fairly familiar ground for teachers and
does not present the complexities of the Shakespeare/poetry assessment. The Descriptive
writing was often generously treated, however, and this was particularly the case when the
students overloaded their work with inappropriate and over-used vocabulary. The narrative
work was more realistically marked though the points I made above about the relationship
between the two aspects of the final assessment apply here also.
GCSE English Literature
This section of the Controlled Assessment has already been considered at length above. It only
remains to add that here there was some very impressive work. Again the high marks were
gained by those students who were able to consider clearly the way that the language usage of
the writers created the effects.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
22
Assessment
The points made in the GCSE English report are relevant here and it was clear that some
students had moved from the Literature Specification to English, taking their work with them. It
is important to remember that the Literature work is marked out of 40 while in the English folder
the work is assessed out of 20. Thus if a student does move across Specifications care must be
taken to adjust the mark accordingly. The Assessment Criteria are marginally different too so a
reconsideration of the mark is necessary.
Concluding Remarks.
I believe it is greatly to the credit of English Departments across England and Wales that they
have managed the new Specifications so successfully. My thanks go to those teachers for
making the whole structure work but I suppose we have all had plenty of practice managing
change.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
23
SPOKEN LANGUAGE STUDY
As a new element in the English Language specification, there had been some concern that
this would prove a difficult area for both teachers and students. In the event, however, this
proved not to be the case.
A wide range of materials was used, with many inventive tasks being prepared, as well as use
of the exemplar materials and tasks which had been suggested at CPD meetings and on the
WJEC website.
In most cases, the transcripts used by the candidates were attached to the work, which was
very helpful and also showed the annotations which the students had made. In some cases,
students used an additional page of notes, though there were some concerns that, on a few
occasions, these strayed beyond the guidelines set down by the regulatory body and
constituted detailed plans of the work which were in effect an abbreviated version of the essay
written by the student. Such occurrences were, thankfully, rare but were referred for further
investigation.
Task setting
The tasks devised by teachers were varied and, in some cases, quite innovative. Many made
use of the chat show format, with such diverse participants as Dizzee Rascal, J. K. Rowling,
Lady Gaga, Hugh Laurie and David Cameron. Interviewers included Jeremy Paxman, Andrew
Marr and Jonathan Ross among others. This allowed students the opportunity to view the
interviews as well as make use of transcripts. In some cases, the same interviewee was seen
with different interviewers, and this allowed for a comparison of how the person adapted their
language and approach according to the different style of questioning and the perceived
audience. This was the case for J. K. Rowling in interviews with the American ’60 minutes’
programme, contrasted with her appearance on ‘Blue Peter’ and David Cameron seen on ‘The
One Show’ and ‘This Morning’. Jay-Z was interviewed by Andrew Marr and also by DJs from
an American Radio station and Emma Watson appeared on an American chat show with David
Letterman and also on ‘Blue Peter’. These are just a few of the tasks which allowed students to
probe the way in which people responded to different questioning. They were clearly
successful as tasks and the careful wording of questions led the students into consideration of
the effects of language with, thankfully, little in the way of device spotting. There was real
engagement here.
Other tasks made use of both prepared and spontaneous speech, sometimes contrasting
scripts from a ‘soap’ such as ‘Eastenders’ with spontaneous speech, often recorded and
transcribed themselves. This also proved fruitful material where the attempts of the
scriptwriters to mimic ‘real’ speech came under scrutiny. Sometimes, however, the use of
students’ own transcripts proved less helpful, sometimes because the conversations used had
less focus or involved too many people, none of whom made a significant contribution.
Excessive length of transcripts sometimes proved unhelpful, and perhaps some focus on part of
a longer piece would be beneficial. This was true of those who used extracts from ‘The
Apprentice’, ‘The Young Apprentice’ or ‘Dragons’ Den’ where sometimes there was a tendency
to try and cover the whole transcript where a narrower focus would have allowed for more
detailed consideration. Conversely, some material was very slight – there was one example of
the material used amounting to a little over fifty words of speech which lasted a little over a
minute. This inevitably penalised students who were unable to say a great deal when little had
been said on which they could comment.
In general, this task elicited excellent responses from the students who were clearly engaged in
and conversant with the conventions of spoken language and its effects.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
24
Assessment
It was pleasing to see reliable assessments in the vast majority of cases here. It was clear that
the criteria were referred to in assessments and that they allowed teachers to reward students
for their ability to analyse and evaluate. It was rare to see very low marks: these were
sometimes seen when students did not complete the task or could not move beyond simple
awareness and understanding of how language was used differently in different situations. The
overriding impression was that students – and their teachers – had enjoyed this new element of
the specification, and it seems likely that these initial forays into the world of the media will
provide more rich pickings.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
25
SPEAKING AND LISTENING
This is the first report on the new specification for the Speaking and Listening element for
English Language and English.
Administration
A new schedule for Advisory Moderators’ visits was instigated this year, with the month of
November earmarked for visits. This proved very successful on the whole, with moderators
and teachers able to negotiate convenient times for visits within this time frame. There were
some exceptions but these were few and far between. A different time slot was used for the
sampling of records and overview of the materials used by centres, with the date at the
beginning of May set for these to be sent. This part of the process proved less successful, with
many centres failing to send the materials at the appropriate time or sending them with the Unit
3 Controlled Assessment sample folders – which meant they went to the incorrect moderator.
Hopefully this will be less of an issue next year when centres are more familiar with the
timetable.
The majority of centres used the suggested report format provided in the specifications, but
others adopted their own format, using the WJEC form as a final record summing up the best of
the tasks used over the course. There was evidence of ‘practice’ tasks being used and
assessed to give guidance to students, which seemed a good process and showed evidence of
teaching of the skills of speaking and listening.
Contact with centres was generally straightforward, but, as ever, some centres proved difficult
to contact and there were some problems with arrangement of visits. In most cases, a
reasonable sample of candidates was provided, though there were some instances of too few
or too many candidates presented for assessment. Most centres ensured that the candidates
were clearly identified, but there were still some that did not.
The vast majority of centres presented candidates from Year 11 (the cohort which was being
submitted for final assessment in 2012) but some also presented Year 10 candidates, which
often proved problematic as the candidates had had little opportunity for teaching of the skills
required. That these same candidates were aiming to complete the course in 2012 meant that
they should be assessed, but often their achievement at this stage was more limited.
Task setting
There have been a number of examples of good task-setting seen by moderators, but also
some situations which were problematic. There were a number of instances where candidates
were clearly presenting a task which they had done before which led to a lack of spontaneity
and an over-prescribed feel to the ‘turn-taking’. Sometimes groups were large which meant
some candidates were marginalised during discussions. Alternatively, candidates were
presented with a wealth of material on the day which had to be read before any meaningful talk
could take place.
Reliance on written material, particularly for those presenting individual responses for
Communicating and Adapting Language, was worryingly common, as was, still, poor use of
PowerPoint. In both cases, candidates tended to read from either a prepared script or the
PowerPoint slides, making assessment of the ability to communicate information or ideas very
difficult.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
26
Some of the scenarios used for Creating and Sustaining Roles used characters which were
self-limiting, such as Lennie (from Of Mice and Men) or Boo Radley (from To Kill a
Mockingbird): here the characters’ own deficiencies limited the candidates’ chances to develop
and sustain a role. On other occasions, the task seemed to have been interpreted with too
much emphasis on dramatic techniques rather than the ability to create a role.
However, there were also a number of tasks which proved successful which might be of use to
centres planning Speaking and Listening activities.
Communicating and adapting language




A pitch for a charity to be adopted by either the school/college or town council. A
number of these could feature with the final outcome being decided by group vote.
A pitch by prospective Head Boy/Head Girl to different audiences – peers, teachers,
Governors, parents, for example.
A speech to the local council to persuade them of the suitability of a student to carry the
Olympic Torch through the town or village.
Selling your local area as a tourist attraction.
Interacting and responding










Looking at a selection of images and choosing those which would be best to use to
promote and represent your school, college or town.
How to plan an ‘austerity’ Prom.
Fitting the punishment to the crime.
A discussion of a school’s new security arrangements.
What to do with a school site after the closure of the existing school.
£100,000 is to be given to local charities but cannot be equally divided: discussion of
how the money should be shared out. (This could lead to a presentation of the decisions
by one of the group or each member explaining to their charity how they ‘won’ their
share.)
Deciding how a piece of land near a school/college could be developed for use by the
school/college and the local community. This could lead to one member of the group
giving feedback or a presentation. A brief period of planning time would be appropriate.
A mock UN debate. This would suit able candidates.
Paired discussion of the features of the J. K. Rowling ‘Sixty Minutes’ interview.
Discussion of transcripts of interviews with Theo Walcott by a young fan and a sports’
pundit, looking at the differences in the language used.
The latter two of these suggestions have clear links to and overlap with the Spoken Language
Study.
Creating and sustaining roles




CSI Scotland – Macbeth
Jonathan Ross style show using characters from The Merchant of Venice.
Scenarios involving the potential placing of an elderly relative in a care home.
A talented athlete who wishes to be allowed time off school in order to train for an
International event such as the Olympics.
These suggestions should be considered alongside those already put forward in last year’s
report.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
27
Assessment
In general, assessments were accurate, with most teachers making close reference to the
Bands. It was surprising to moderators when teachers did not make use of the criteria while
assessing – this seems to place too much reliance on ‘impression’ assessment or on general
recollection. One strategy which worked well was for there to be time set aside after each
activity to discuss the assessments. This allowed for an immediate and focused response
which led to greater accuracy of assessment. It was also felt that being able to focus on a
single group of candidates at a time was better than ‘mimicking’ the classroom situation of
simultaneous discussion as in that instance it was inevitable that some contributions would be
missed or groups would have completed their discussions before they were the focus of
attention. There is greater use of video recording of tasks as a means for teachers to reflect on
achievement, as a tool for departmental moderation and also to guide candidates towards
improvement of their speaking and listening.
On a few occasions, there were insufficient tasks presented for assessment, despite it being
clearly stated in the correspondence that all three areas should be presented for assessment
for all candidates.
There was some confusion evident regarding the functional nature of tasks. Clearly, these
should have a defined outcome. For example, a discussion would need to have a focus such
as coming to a decision or summarising conclusions. ‘Real life’ tasks where students are given
the opportunity to engage, purposefully, with areas of experience which are familiar to them via
school/college or community offer fruitful task setting possibilities in this respect, giving
candidates of all abilities the opportunity to gain some purchase and so show what they can do.
Please note that not all discussions based on non-literary stimuli are to be considered as
functional unless there is a clearly defined audience and purpose.
It would be helpful if some indication was made clear when candidates had been subject to
internal moderation. This should, ideally, appear on the appropriate records. Similarly, when
teacher intervention has occurred, this should also be made clear.
Internal moderation continues to be problematic for many schools and colleges, despite the
requirement in the specification that a sample of each teacher’s candidates must be
reassessed by another teacher.
Obviously, the starting point for any departmental discussion of standards in this area of the
curriculum should be the shared viewing, by English departments of WJEC’s standardising
DVDs and commentaries. A new WJEC exemplar DVD, representing a range of tasks and
marks, will be distributed to centres in September 2012.
Overall, teachers are working hard to integrate speaking and listening into their schemes of
work and ensuring that it is a taught element of the course.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
28
ENGLISH LITERATURE
General Certificate of Secondary Education
Summer 2012
Chair of Examiners:
Jonathan Harrington
Chief Examiner:
Margaret Graham
Principal Examiner:
Mair Lewis
UNIT ONE
General Comments
It was nice to see so many candidates on both tiers tackling the texts they had studied with
enthusiasm and engagement and most were able to show some detailed knowledge of events
and characters in them. A considerable majority wrote on Of Mice and Men, with To Kill a
Mockingbird a fairly distant runner-up. These old favourites provided some understandable
stability where the study of less familiar texts was necessary for Unit 2. Quite a range of
centres, however, ventured very successfully into the less well-known texts. Anita and Me and
Chanda’s Secrets challenged even the very best candidates on Higher Tier, while the stories
and characters in these novels proved accessible and engaging enough for weaker candidates
on Foundation. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings featured in very few scripts this year,
unfortunately, although those who had studied it produced some thoughtful responses.
Key to every candidate’s success, whichever text was addressed, was the timing and balance
of effort and time given across the questions on the paper. Relatively few candidates wrote on
more than one text or adopted a ‘pick and mix’ approach of responding to an extract question
on one but an essay question on another, though it did happen. One could only sympathise
where it became apparent that a candidate was not unfamiliar with one of the texts, just with the
layout of the paper, and had wasted a good deal of time on texts not studied. In the poetry, as
well as in some of the novel essays, candidates who had the confidence to work out what their
ideas and opinions were before embarking on their writing tended to fare better. Babies who
were dead at the beginning of a poetry response sometimes came to life by the end, for
example, or ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’ became slippery and interchangeable in Of Mice and
Men. While examiners will accept candidates’ interpretations and personal responses, it helps
if candidates take time to establish their own views and look for support from the text to
substantiate them.
As suggested above, the poems elicited a wide range of thoughtful ideas and interpretations on
both tiers and it was striking how sensitive and insightful some commentaries were on all three.
Otherwise fairly average scripts were often lifted by candidates’ instinctive grasp of the complex
emotions parents feel for their infants which were conveyed in diverse ways by the poets.
Where candidates could locate the nuances of feeling and thought in the specific language
used, some very high marks indeed were awarded. Most candidates sensibly focused on each
poem in turn which allowed for points of comparison and contrast to emerge from a solid
foundation. Occasionally the comparison rather overwhelmed the consideration of the poems
themselves and candidates who had figured out what was happening in each poem were
generally more able to go beyond the surface (‘they’re both about babies and both mention the
moon’) to a more productive comparison of each persona’s attitude to their offspring and how
these feelings were expressed.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
29
HIGHER TIER
Section A
The extract question on Candy in Of Mice and Men gave candidates plenty to say about the
character at a time when his emotions are raw after the killing of his dog. Many candidates
showed an empathetic understanding, often with a sensitive overview of Candy’s state of mind
– his desperate clutching at straws at the thought of a bleak future, brought about by the loss of
his life-long companion – and those who married such an overall grasp with secure selection of
detail and language scored very highly here. Some saw Candy’s behaviour as sly and
manipulative, weedling and whingeing his way into George and Lennie’s dream future – a
perfectly acceptable interpretation, though some responses did not make clear his motivation
for doing so, missing the connection with his realisation of a grim future ahead. Some saw him
as hopelessly naïve and simple-minded in throwing in his lot with two men he barely knew while
quite a few candidates were thrown by his obvious delight at being accepted by George and
Lennie and focused entirely on his misery and regret at not shooting the dog himself. The
question perhaps had more depth than first appeared since candidates sometimes needed the
cohesive glue of overview to make sense of Candy’s roller-coaster of emotions. There were
also many examples of candidates eager to show their learning in ways which did not always
help them. The ‘foreshadowing’ of Lennie’s death at George’s hands was a frequent
preoccupation, with some candidates not quite seeing this device as Steinbeck’s but more
Candy’s active persuasion of George to kill Lennie. Likewise, the ‘American Dream’ tended to
intrude here as some candidates argued that Candy had yearned all his life for such a farm
which rather misdirected them away from his particular desperation at this point.
The essay questions on Of Mice and Men were about equally popular and both elicited
responses across the mark range. Most candidates could provide apt and often detailed
evidence of events and attributes which evoked their sympathy for Lennie. Common
references were the fight scene and the early scenes with George and the ketchup (or lack of),
often rounded off with some mention of his death at the end of the novel. The highest marks
were given to those who understood and could explain Steinbeck’s presentation of the
character and who dealt with the character as a literary invention rather than a man one might
meet in real life. There was some impressive close examination of the language used by
Steinbeck, especially in the fight scene where Lennie ‘cried in terror’ and ‘bleated’ or after the
murder of Curley’s wife where his speech and behaviour came under some perceptive scrutiny.
His relationship with George, not just in the past where the ill-treatment was obvious, was
looked at analytically by some skilled readers, as was Steinbeck’s use of other characters such
as Curley and his wife to shed a sympathetic light on Lennie. One very effective response
began ‘How come we feel sad and bereft when an irritating half-wit who kills another human
being just so he can ‘tend the rabbits’ meets his end?’ and then went on to show exactly how in
an accomplished analysis!
The question on ‘strengths and weaknesses’ also produced some thoughtful, perceptive
responses. Candidates who were confident enough tended to focus thematically on each,
drawing on examples of friendships as strengths or using contextual factors such as the
stereotyping of women or the casual racism of the time to explain why characters were weak.
Dreams were seen as both a weakness (‘the naive striving after unachievable goals’, as one
astute candidate put it) and a strength, in that characters’ lives were made bearable by hopes
of a better future. In the middle of the mark range, responses often demonstrated a detailed
knowledge of the text but tended to tangle examiners in knots with strengths mutating (midsentence sometimes) into weaknesses and vice versa. More canny candidates used this idea
cohesively, however, arguing that in Steinbeck’s bleak portrayal of Depression America, all
strengths (friendships, beauty, physical prowess, etc.) eventually became weaknesses which
brought characters down. It is worth noting, however, that even in some thoughtful responses,
examiners often found that practised or previously set essays on ‘power’, ‘loneliness’, ‘dreams’
or ‘prejudice’ skewed the focus of the answer. More straightforward responses based on
characters who were described as weak or strong, especially where the explanation for these
ideas was detailed and thorough, often scored higher marks than those which rehashed a past
paper with limited thought given to the question.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
30
Although relatively few centres had studied Anita and Me, examiners saw much to be
commended on this text. The extract’s intensity and high energy invited well-prepared
candidates to look closely at the mismatch of emotions between Meena and Sam and how this
helped to evoke the highly charged mood and atmosphere here. While a few missed the depth
of meaning behind Meena’s triumph after the kiss, many candidates tracked the quick-fire
changes in mood with purpose and focus.
The majority of candidates addressed the question on how Meena changes over the course of
the novel. Some focused almost exclusively on the relationship with Anita which was a shame
as opportunities were missed to discuss the influence of other characters such as Nanima, Sam
and Robert. Better candidates tackled the issue of Meena’s conflicting cultures with sensitivity
and tended to see how powerfully this had affected her growing up. While there were fewer
scripts where candidates wrote in the voice of Meena’s father, the better ones blended empathy
with the character and his situation in white working class Tollington, bringing up his children,
with detail gleaned from incidents from across the novel, including the later sections. Less
successful responses here, as well as in other texts, were more general and did not make
sufficiently frequent and detailed reference to the text.
There was some subtlety in the portrayal of Atticus in the extract from To Kill a Mockingbird,
although candidates who knew the character well from their reading of the novel were alert to
the nuances of his underplayed irritation and anger. Perceptive candidates wrote with some
lovely insight into the meaning of carefully placed cutlery and pushed chairs. Some noticed the
quiet sarcasm of Atticus’ assertion that ‘he’d never say’ that Alexandra hadn’t warned him of the
dire consequences of his tolerant attitudes. Many candidates were well prepared and ensured
that in addressing the question in a focused way, conclusions were drawn about Atticus’
character at different points. His quiet determination, self-control and patience were illustrated
by careful selection of detail from the extract, for example, in very many responses. Again
here, however, there was some assiduousness amongst candidates who were anxious to
explain (over-explain perhaps) Atticus’ philosophy of walking in another man’s shoes which was
slightly differently used here from the adage learned by many candidates. The previous night’s
encounter with the mob was also dwelt on rather too long by some candidates at the expense
of focus on the extract itself. On the whole, however, candidates were well-versed in Atticus’
attributes and looked to find evidence of them in the passage.
Some of the best responses from the whole paper were those where candidates wrote in the
voice of Jem and looked back on the events, characters and ideas portrayed in the novel.
Some very skilful renditions of his attitudes, idioms and experience were awarded very high
marks. Such responses were characterised by the natural inclusion of echoes of the language
in the novel and an assured sense of how Jem would view his experience in hindsight. One
masterful response had Jem comment ruefully on Mrs Dubose ‘who taught me an important
lesson about courage and what it means – but I’m still glad she’s not around to spit her poison
from her porch every time a little girl skips past on a Sunday.’ Some clever working of context
featured also. Some excellent responses had Jem reflecting on how different Atticus was from
the rest of Maycomb, for example, including some integrated details about life in the Southern
States in the 1930s. Many candidates were able to organise their writing sensibly too, selecting
the key characters, relationships and events which made a lasting impression on Jem. This
was no mean feat considering the scope of the text and its narration in a different, though
closely related voice. Candidates were deservedly well rewarded for their focus here. Some
candidates discussed Atticus as a father, Jem’s relationship with Scout and Dill and some
interesting events (often the shooting of the mad dog) but left out the trial which denied them
some meaty material with which to work.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
31
The question on ‘justice’ was more popular but candidates met with more varied success here.
Most could discuss the injustice of Tom Robinson’s trial productively, showing how Atticus
proved the verdict was wrong, and there was often some consideration of Boo Radley’s unfair
treatment at the hands of prejudiced townsfolk. Some responses drifted into essays on
prejudice rather than justice and there was some muddle or simplicity about the ending of the
novel and whether Bob Ewell or Boo Radley were justly dealt with. There were, however, some
fine distinctions made in high quality answers between the idea of mob justice, the law and real
fairness and equality, with some confident handling and exemplification of complex ideas. Like
the ‘strengths and weaknesses’ question on Of Mice and Men, candidates who had considered
what they wanted to say about justice and how characters and events could support their views
fared better and could sustain more developed responses than those who listed unfair things
that occurred to various characters throughout the novel.
Scripts on I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings were few and far between this session, with most
who had studied the text having taken the examination in earlier sessions. In the extract
question, there was some careful tracking of the tension as Maya waited to hear what had
befallen the young Bailey Junior. This approach works well with all texts and ensures that
consideration is given to the whole of the passage. Essay responses were almost all on the
relationship between Momma and Maya and despite some under-developed discussion, some
detail was selected and apt references to key events made. In several, there was an
interesting consideration of Momma’s harsh and strict parental regime and how Maya grew to
understand her grandmother’s experience of racism. The second question gave candidates
some freedom to choose the characters and events which were linked to particular locations.
Stamps provided a rich seam of material in the characters of Momma and Uncle Willie as well
as many key events, but other locations allowed some focus on Maya’s father and mother.
Weaker candidates muddled up what had happened where but some key events which
contributed to Maya’s development were usually addressed sensibly.
Chanda’s Secrets has begun to attract a small following of centres whose candidates tackled
the text with some engagement and success on both tiers. The extract was identified
accurately by most on Higher Tier though some found the rather subdued mood and
atmosphere needed some close reading to pin down. Weaker candidates sometimes struggled
to find ways to describe Chanda’s sense of detachment from the pitiful surroundings of the
cemetery but showed a clear understanding of the pathos of the second part of the passage.
The question on Mrs. Tafa proved quite an effective vehicle for candidates to show their
knowledge of the text, especially since many remembered to comment on the role the character
played in the novel, such as ‘she represents everything that’s secret and wrongly covered up by
the people in the community’, and there was some detail and discussion of her relationship with
Chanda’s family in the best responses. Fewer candidates chose the second question on the
novel being both ‘painful and powerful’ but those who did selected events from the novel to
agree with this description, most often citing the death of Chanda’s little sister and Esther’s
treatment as a prostitute. This was a sound approach which ensured that candidates avoided
the ‘broad brush’ generality which so often results in a disappointing mark.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
32
Section B
Responses to the Duffy and Boland poems were stunningly perceptive and sensitive at the very
best. Some candidates showed a confidence and interpretative skill which seemed well beyond
their years. A willingness to look closely at the rich imagery and language of the Duffy poem
seemed characteristic of these good responses, with the ‘small wood’ and the ‘spirit that lives/in
the heart of such woods’ inviting perceptive candidates to interpret and probe ideas. The
religious implications of ‘sacred’ led some to see in the poem a vision of angelic perfection
while others referred to its fairy tale, dream-like quality. The ‘greater dark’ outside was often
interpreted as the perils of the wider world which would encroach on the child’s innocence in
time. The poet’s sense of awe and of being spellbound by her baby was captured by nearly all
candidates. Some over-literal reading of the details were evident in some: the wood became
variously the baby’s cot or her coffin and the family sometimes lived in a forest, for example. A
surprising number of candidates across the ability range had this baby, (and sometimes
Boland’s as well,) lying dead in coffins or cots, despite the mother ‘hearing her breathe’. There
were sick babies, babies in comas and incubators and stolen babies too. While there were
such interpretations which convinced examiners and showed a real sensitivity to the language,
many candidates got tangled up in trying to make the details fit their interpretation. ‘Night Feed’
was perhaps a more subtle, though apparently straightforward, poem for most candidates.
Many wrote sensibly about its depiction of the routine of caring for a baby and of the mother’s
pride in her baby, while some excellent responses looked closely at the implications of the ‘long
fall from grace’ and the slightly ambiguous ‘This is the best I can be’ and ‘It’s time we drowned
our sorrows.’ Comparisons focused on the poets’ use of natural imagery and the wonder felt by
both mothers for their babies though, as ever, the best responses discussed the subtle
distinctions between them and the poets’ crafting of language and image.
There was, unfortunately, quite a lot of empty counting of rhymes and identification of
metaphors and alliteration and the like. These approaches were often much more damaging
than misinterpretations of meaning where candidates were at least engaging with ideas and
language. Terms were misapplied too with many finding rhyming couplets or iambic
pentameters or sonnets where there were none. Some candidates had an instinctive grasp of
quite complex ideas in the poems but didn’t locate them in the detail and language. The
ambivalence of the mother in ‘Night Feed’ or the sense of nature protecting the babies was
alluded to but often candidates couldn’t say where these interesting ideas came from, which
was a shame.
FOUNDATION TIER
Section A
As usual, a sound knowledge of the text got many candidates a long way in Section A and
where candidates followed the bullet points and provided some detail and support from the text
for their views, high marks were achieved on all texts. There was plenty of evidence of
candidates’ knowledge and understanding of the texts they had studied and there were some
strong, empathetic views on the characters and issues dealt with in the novels. Extract
questions were often awarded marks of 8 or 9 in responses which showed much promise, only
to achieve 11 or 12 in the essays where they were required to sustain their writing. Many
showed less confidence in selecting events and characters to illustrate their opinions here.
References to details which appear in films rather than novels, for the Steinbeck especially,
tended to spoil some otherwise secure answers. As expected, rubric infringements where
answers on several texts were attempted were more common on Foundation as were
incomplete scripts where the poetry was not attempted – though these were both quite rare
occurrences overall.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
33
Most candidates identified with Candy’s plight in the Of Mice and Men extract and understood
that he had been deeply affected by the killing of his dog. Words such as ‘nervously’ and
‘miserably’ were picked out by many to show his state of mind and the best answers tracked his
emotions quite thoroughly for the highest marks. Better answers kept quotation to a minimum
and offered some comment on what references showed about Candy’s feelings, whereas overlong quotation and paraphrasing was more characteristic of weaker responses. After the first
paragraph, where Candy has the most to say, there was a tendency for some drifting of focus
towards George and Lennie, though some could see a manipulative side to Candy in offering to
‘bribe’ his way into their dream. Coverage of the extract was an issue in some cases, where
only the first paragraph was really addressed.
The bullet points were sensibly followed by many candidates in the question on Lennie and
events selected often helped them to focus on the qualities which made the reader feel
sympathy for him. There were very few completely narrative responses with limited focus on
Lennie, showing that candidates had been well-prepared here. The ketchup incident was
commonly used to address the first bullet point though some mentioned Weed which reflected
the sequence of the film better than the novel and details given were often from the film too.
Some good responses focused on George’s nastiness before they reach the ranch, often with
some apt and detailed reference to what he says to Lennie about the life he could have without
him. The fight scene was also generally well described as an example of Lennie’s ill-treatment
by others and candidates wrote quite movingly about their sympathy for Lennie at the end of
the novel. The question on ‘types of strength and weakness’ also elicited some thoughtful
answers. Lennie’s great physical strength was quite often seen as a weakness too in some
sensible discussions of the effects of his unintended violence, though some focused more on
how he made Curley flop ‘like a fish’ and the ease with which he broke Curley’s wife’s neck.
Some candidates selected Slim and George as ‘strong’ characters, citing Slim’s ‘prince of the
ranch’ status and George’s ability to look after Lennie despite the difficulties. In less wellrounded responses, candidates often listed characters who they considered weak or strong,
with rather generalised reasons for their views such as ‘Lennie is strong because he nearly
killed Curley and George has a strong mind because he has to take care of Lennie.’ Matching
their opinions with apt reference to the text to illustrate their ideas would have nudged this
middle range of scripts higher up the mark range.
The Anita and Me extract produced responses across a wide range of marks, from some very
closely read, focused answers to confused muddles which showed limited knowledge of the
incident depicted. There was a lot of frenetic action in the extract which drew on candidates’
understanding of a range of characters. Candidates generally did better if they focused on
Meena’s reactions to Sam and Anita and explained what they thought and felt about them.
Weaker responses showed limited grasp of what was going on and what it meant and tended to
reproduce and paraphrase with little comment of their own.
Most candidates chose the second essay question on events which helped Meena grow up.
There were some wonderfully detailed references to the Sam’s comments at the fete and to
Meena’s grandmother’s visit to Tollington, often with clear comments on what Meena realised
about the latent racism of her community or the importance of her Indian heritage. The best
responses included both detail and opinion and it was gratifying to see that many Foundation
candidates empathised strongly with Meena and understood her growing awareness of her
different background. Few candidates addressed the empathy question on Meena’s father but
those who did were rewarded for reference to the character’s experience of specific events and
characters, such as the arrival of Nanima and Meena’s exploits with Anita. Such focus on
selecting clear references to the text, rather than vague impressions and narration of parts of
the novel Meena’s father would not have witnessed, resulted in some high marks.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
34
Fewer candidates wrote about To Kill a Mockingbird on Foundation than on Higher Tier but
there were some excellent answers on this text. Despite some generalisation about Atticus in
the extract answers, there was enough detailed discussion and thorough discussion for marks
at the top of the higher band. His body language was noted by some sharp-eyed candidates
who wrote about how he doesn’t get overtly angry but shows his irritation in small ways. His
views about Walter Cunningham were understood by most and better responses looked at his
behaviour towards Alexandra also.
The empathy question on Jem was sometimes tackled very well, with the best following the
advice about selecting specific parts of this wide-ranging novel for closer reference. Jem’s
admiration for his father was reflected accurately in some good responses and there was much
sound knowledge of the children’s interactions with Boo Radley. Inevitably, some responses
told the story with little sense of Jem’s perspective and a few did not grasp the idea of writing in
Jem’s voice. The ‘justice’ question required candidates to select and discuss relevant ‘times’
where fairness or justice was important. A few left out the trial altogether, which was a pity, and
some listed events briefly with little comment. Better answers tended to refer to the trial as an
example of injustice, with the treatment of Boo Radley also a common illustration of how
prejudice can cause unfairness.
The few candidates who wrote on I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings responded to the horrific
scene described by Bailey Junior at the end of the extract but little was said about the rest.
There was also some confusion in the essay question on the different places Maya lived, where
candidates wrote about some events and characters but were rarely able to link them to
specific places. Momma’s influence in Stamps was rather better understood than other
characters and places although some wrote engagingly about Maya’s father and the trip to
Mexico.
Chanda’s Secrets elicited more numerous and more wide-ranging responses. Those who
could locate the extract and knew the ‘who/where/what’ was described in it generally fared well
here. Most candidates sympathised with Chanda’s sorrow at the loss of her sister, understood
her family’s poverty and could select appropriate details from the extract to support their views.
The ‘dirt road’ and the ‘fences bent out of shape’ and Chanda’s bald statement that ‘This is
what Sara will have’ were noticed by some to good effect. There were some very brief answers
in which simple judgements were made about the horrible scene at the cemetery but
sometimes candidates did not know who Sara was which meant there was little real grasp of
Chanda’s state of mind.
Candidates who wrote about Mrs. Tafa focused on the strong bond between her and Chanda’s
mother and all were able to comment on her son’s death. Chanda’s own attitude and growing
understanding of Mrs. Tafa was perhaps a missed opportunity for discussion though most
candidates were aware of some of the places in the novel where Mrs. Tafa played a significant
role such as the later scenes in Bonang or the help she gave to the dying mother. ‘Painful and
powerful’ scenes described by the very few candidates who chose the second question
included Esther’s rape, though there was also some reliance on the extract for reference to
Sara’s death.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
35
Section B
The description of the subject matter of the poems given in bold at the top of the page was
essential reading for all candidates, though there were many who gave themselves a much
harder job by not reading it. In ‘3am Feed’, for example, candidates often missed the idea of
the father remembering back to when his son was a baby so misunderstood the link between
the ‘summer storm’ and the memory of the feed. The speaker was assumed to be a mother by
quite a few candidates also, which made the references to the office and ‘currents that tugged
us apart’ more difficult to grasp. Quite common misreadings, such as the baby being in hospital
in an oxygen tank or, more worryingly, the characters being fish living under the sea, might
have been avoided if candidates had taken more care to read the information given to them.
Having said that, those candidates who worked out what was happening, who was speaking
and where they were, often wrote with real insight and sensitivity about the poems and
responded personally to the idea of the love parents feel for their children. The ‘perfect fit’ of
Blyth’s baby son was referred to as an example of this and there was often an appreciation of
the regret felt by the father at the missed milestones. The image of the pearl was addressed
with real engagement by many candidates who described it as reflecting how precious the baby
was to his father. Apart from the misreadings mentioned above, the main weakness in
responses to this poem was in a failure to follow the sense of the lines so that the detailed
memory of the child’s first steps, for example, were sometimes wrongly attributed to the father
or the sense of looking back at the past was not understood. ‘Night Feed’ was usually better, if
simply, understood as a poem about the pleasures of bringing up a baby. The more
straightforward chronology was more accessible perhaps and better responses showed more
confident probing of the mother’s feelings because her actions were more readily understood.
Many candidates, however, were confused and misled by the glossed words from the poems
which were either given too much weight and assumed to be significant or the explanation of
the words was considered to be part of the poem (as were the author attributions and
permissions). These mistakes, as well as the missed explanation of the poems’ content,
showed how important familiarity with the layout of the paper is for candidates at all levels of
ability.
It would be wrong to end on such a negative note, however. Candidates mostly had a good go
at the poems and there was much evidence of sound understanding of mood and atmosphere
and, in many cases, how language is used to create particular effects. Where candidates knew
their texts well, were willing and confident enough to engage with the poems and were familiar
with the layout of the paper, examiners found much to credit and enjoy in their work.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
36
UNIT TWO
General Comments
For the Chief Examiner, the period just after the Literature exam has been taken is always a time
of some anxiety, waiting to see what candidates have made of the questions, and, in some years,
of the occasional new text; imagine how it was this year, with new exams, and some twelve new
texts across Papers 2a and 2b. However, as always, candidates, well guided by what was
evidently very sound preparation over the two years of the course, rose to the occasion
admirably, and it was a pleasure to read well informed and engaged responses. It was also
interesting to see the choices departments and teachers had made about what texts to study. In
some centres, a decision had clearly been made for all students to study the same texts, but in
some, there was a really wide range of choices made, with some classes being prepared for 2a,
and some for 2b, with individual choices made by teachers within each paper. Whilst there were
some texts which were particularly popular, all texts were tackled, on both tiers, and item level
data analysis was reassuring in confirming judgements that all seemed to elicit comparable
responses.
In 2a, the most popular prose text was Heroes, followed by About A Boy. Never Let Me Go,
although less popular, elicited strong and successful responses, as did Resistance, whilst Paddy
Clark Ha Ha Ha had a bit of a renaissance, having had relatively limited take up in the final years
of the legacy examination. As for drama, An Inspector Calls was the runaway winner,
unsurprisingly, with the texts inherited from legacy, Hobson's Choice and Othello picked up extra
takers on both Foundation and Higher tiers. Of the new texts here, A Taste of Honey proved a
successful addition to the list, whilst Much Ado About Nothing, rather surprisingly, perhaps, was
the least frequently studied text on this paper.
For 2b, Blood Brothers was the most popular drama text, followed by A View from the Bridge. Of
the new additions to the list, Be My Baby was the most frequently chosen, followed by The
History Boys and My Mother Said I Never Should, in that order. For the literary heritage novel,
Lord of the Flies and A Christmas Carol were the most frequently chosen, but Pride and Prejudice
and Silas Marner held up well – with more takers on the Foundation tier than has been the case
in the past – with Ash on a Young Man's Sleeve bringing up the rear, although there were some
fresh and engaged responses to this text too.
There are some main messages which can be applied to both drama and novels in both papers.
On the whole, responses to extract questions have seen significant improvement, partly, perhaps,
as a result of messages from reports such as this and messages in CPD meetings making their
way back to the classroom. One area where there is still room for improvement, however, is
where candidates, who, in the rest of the paper, write clearly and coherently, sometimes struggle
to find the vocabulary to articulate their ideas, and resort to simple observations such as Scrooge
being “horrid” or “nasty” or, in Blood Brothers, detecting a “hustling” mood or even “a taking the
mickey atmosphere” (with no pun intended). This is a skill that could usefully be developed and
practised. It is also worth reminding students that the main focus of the response is the extract,
but it is fine to show an understanding of how it fits into the text as a whole. Drifting off into what
effectively becomes a response to the whole text, however, should be avoided at all costs!
With the extended responses, there was, perhaps, more of a tendency to drift from the focus of
the question, in order to deliver what had been prepared, done as a “Mock” or perhaps as a
Controlled Assessment task. At its most extreme, this meant that candidates determinedly totally
ignored the question asked, thereby limiting the marks that could be awarded, although credit is
given for knowledge and understanding shown where possible. Practice at focusing on the
question, starting with a strong introduction, and then linking back to the question throughout the
response, and ending with an equally strong and focused conclusion, should allow candidates to
see how they can mould their knowledge of the text to fit the question set.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
37
Next, a reminder that the importance of knowing the story of the set texts, and the story of the
main characters within the text, is the key to success at every level. With that sort of confident
foundation, consideration of themes, and relevant references to context can fit where
appropriate and natural, and not become an add-on, as was seen to an extreme in one
instance where a number of Foundation candidates had evidently memorised a paragraph of
historical context on Dickensian London which was appended under a subheading of “historical
context” at the end of their essay on A Christmas Carol.
And finally, the perennial reminder about film versions. Using film versions of the texts can be a
very useful support and topic for discussion, but the text being examined is the written text, so
references to talent contests in About A Boy, and even, on one occasion, to Kermit (surely a
slip of the pen in the heat of the moment in the examination hall?!) in A Christmas Carol, or,
with the same novel, references to the songs Londoners were singing in the street, could not be
credited as reference to the text. Some students who had had the good fortune to see a
production of one of the plays made relevant reference to this experience and linked their
observations to their discussion of the text, and this is perfectly acceptable, of course. Finally,
again there were some candidates who were over, or, sometimes, wholly, dependent on the
material in the printed extract for their extended writing. Whilst it could well be sensible to draw
on any relevant material from the extract when answering the essay question, all essay
questions will necessitate reference to the whole text, and so those who only use the extract
are penalising themselves.
Unit 2a – Literary heritage drama and contemporary prose
Higher Tier
Unit 2a was the more popular of the two options, and in Section A, heritage drama, An
Inspector Calls was by far and away the most popular text, most often accompanied by Heroes
in Section B. That being said, virtually all the texts were studied in significant numbers, with the
exception of Much Ado About Nothing, which proved to be something of a niche attraction.
Perhaps Much Ado will attract more takers in the future, as that certainly has been the case
with Othello, which was more popular than in previous years - in fact it was the second most
popular drama text. The extract proved very accessible, with candidates recognising where it
lay in the play and therefore in the development of Iago’s machinations. Some asserted,
incorrectly, that Iago speaks in prose throughout, and used that as support for his dissolute
character, although the best noticed how his tone switched from when he dismissed Roderigo
and exposed his inner feelings through soliloquy, or, perhaps, direct address. Most showed
some assurance in discussing his possible motivation, with the best highlighting how the breaks
in his speech may reflect his patterns of thought. The essays seemed fairly evenly split. There
were often very well balanced discussions of where sympathy for the character of Othello may
be felt, with his striking Desdemona and, of course, his killing of her being highlighted as points
where it is difficult to feel any sympathy at all, although even here, evaluative and sensitive
discussions considered Othello’s self-confessed feelings of inadequacy which were leapt upon
by Iago. One forthright candidate described Othello as ‘too trusting and somewhat daft”, which
seems a reasonable assessment of his character! In the second essay option, love and
jealousy were the more often chosen emotions, with some interesting discussions of how
different characters exhibited different forms of the chosen emotion. There was clear evidence
in responses to this play, that candidates not only coped well with it, producing thoughtful, well
informed and, at the top, evaluative responses, but also had really enjoyed studying it.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
38
Those who answered on Much Ado About Nothing were well able to discuss the quick-fire
exchange between Benedick and Beatrice, with the best appreciating how quickly the passionate
emotions switch in the exchange between Beatrice and Benedick, and how Beatrice would seem to
have the upper hand, with Benedick unable to get a word in, after she demands that he “kill
Claudio.” The essay on Claudio was the more popular of the two, with the best recognising the
somewhat contradictory sides of his character, and all being able to re-tell his story in the play, and
discuss his behaviour. Some felt events had overtaken him, and that by the end of the play he has
developed and matured, whilst others felt that Hero could do much better for herself. As ever with
this kind of question, any opinion is welcomed and rewarded, so long as it is accompanied by
supporting reference to the text. Those who answered on Q. (b) (iii) were well able to highlight key
moments from the play where deceit and trickery is important, and to discuss how these moments
added to the development of the plot as well as to the development of the characters.
The huge numbers answering on An Inspector Calls responded well to the extract from the play,
with the best, as always, specifically identifying the mood and atmosphere from the very start, then
charting its development. These were the candidates who also recognised the conflict between
Mrs. Birling and the other characters, including her own family, and read the stage directions as
closely as the dialogue. Focus on the effects of the Inspector’s contribution – his terseness, his use
of graphic language and his explosion of exasperation and anger – was also well rewarded. The
advice to the actor playing Eric question was often very well done, with the guidance embedded in
the question usually steering candidates in the right direction, and there were some very thoughtful
and perceptive discussions of how his character develops through the play, and, consequently, how
his relationships with others changes, and how he brings out some of Priestley’s key messages.
Less successful responses latched onto his drinking problem, and didn’t get much further, with the
actor being given advice to slur his words, fall over the furniture, and stagger around the stage.
Some candidates felt they could ignore the script and suggested how Eric could have behaved
differently, whilst a few gave advice to the character rather than the actor. This sort of question is a
device to enable candidates to give their personal response to the presentation of a character, and
the best do so, indeed, delivering engaged interpretations, which would be extremely useful to an
actor embarking on the role, being well informed, thoughtful, and rooted in the text. The question on
responsibility was the more popular of the two essay choices. Some tracked through the “chain of
events”, and this approach could get candidates quite a long way, but the best went beyond that to
achieve a clear overview of how the theme is presented through characters, events, language
(“millions and millions of Eva Smiths”, “fire and blood and anguish” and so on), as well as through
the structure of the play, with Mrs. Birling being used to expose her own son’s responsibility and the
significance of the final phone call. Less successful were those who got so caught up with the
historical context that the play barely got a look in, and those who did not get much further than the
extract.
Hobson’s Choice not only has held up well in the change of specification, but has increased a bit in
popularity, and, as always, candidates wrote about it with evident affection as well as knowledge
and engagement. Appreciation of Hobson’s melodramatics proved something of a discriminator for
the highest marks, whilst those who took him more at his word, and expressed their sympathy could
still get a long way. Again, those who read the stage directions carefully and thus picked up on
Brighouse’s reference to the character’s “self-pity” were well served. There were some superb
recreations of the character of Maggie, with excellent use of direct reference to the text and a
sensitive understanding of the character’s journey through the text, but the more popular essay
choice was the second one, writing about “the transformation of Willie”, with all being able to chart
the considerable changes wrought in the character through his interactions with the Hobson family,
particularly Maggie, and many perceptively noting that the timid boothand is still detectable, just, at
the end of the play. Some took the line that although the character of Willie does change, the
change in Hobson is more of a transformation, and made a good case for this. So long as the
original question is not disregarded, this is a perfectly valid approach to take to open questions like
this.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
39
A Taste of Honey proved a very successful addition to the list, having been “rested” for many
years, and there were some very high quality responses, although there were engaged and
informed responses from across the ability range. Candidates’ enjoyment of the text was
immediately evident in their responses to the extract, recognising its context within the play,
and therefore sympathising with both Jo and Geof, reaching mood and atmosphere through
their exploration of the behaviour of the characters, with the best showing an understanding of
how the tensions between Helen, Jo and Geof develop. The advice to the actor question was
well done on the whole, perhaps because candidates had a clear affection for, and
understanding of, her character, and there were some very thoughtful discussions of how Jo’s
upbringing had impacted on her relationships with the men in the play, as well as with that with
her mother. There were some really interesting responses to the second essay, such as one,
given full marks, which discussed how the play challenged many stereotypes of the 1950s,
many of which still apply today, and went on to discuss, amongst other things, Helen and Jo’s
attitudes to life and men, motherhood, racial attitudes, and homosexuality, all backed up by
specific reference to the events of the play, before concluding, “Overall, A Taste of Honey
breaks many conventions and stereotypes, such as prejudice towards race and sexuality, as
well as the idea of women’s roles. It is this, along with her fantastic and memorable characters,
that make the play a timeless piece, both ‘ahead of its time’ and relevant to a modern
audience.” Less successful responses, and these were a minority, did not seem to appreciate
how shocking Jo’s predicament as “an unmarried mother” would have been in the 1950s, or
thought that racism and homophobia has no place in modern Britain “so the play is irrelevant.”
Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha also picked up more interest this year, and was, in fact, the third most
frequently studied prose text. In responses to the extract, Paddy’s confused feelings were
appreciated and discussed, often with real sensitivity, and Doyle’s use of the boxing analogy
allowed for exploration of stylistic features. There were some strong responses from candidates
writing as Paddy’s da, using detail from the text to support sensitive portrayals of his character,
although some were more limited, and focused virtually exclusively on the domestic violence,
and missed the times of warmth with his family. The second essay choice also elicited
engaged, detailed and thoughtful responses, although some struggled with the idea of “painfully
bitter”, perhaps breaking it up unnecessarily, and attempting to focus on pain and then what
was “bitter” and getting a bit stuck. Others explored and evaluated key events within the novel,
such as the family trip to Dollymount and the ending of the novel, which at least one candidate
suggested represented “the end of the ‘pain’ and ‘bitterness’ which has been present during
Paddy’s childhood, by ‘I shook his hand. It was cold and dry. Big and hard,’” and went on to
show how this could represent an end to the “painful bitterness” presented in the novel.
The most popular choice of a novel, by a long way, was Heroes, and fortunately proved to be
very successful in eliciting a full range of responses from the full range of candidates. The
extract worked well, as it provided plenty of discrimination within it. Some, for example, only
saw the positive side of Larry (as did the children!), although those who noted and discussed
the “darker side” would thereby move into the higher range of marks. Some who did not read as
closely as they might have done misread the reference to “he still beats up kids in the
schoolyard” as referring to Larry, but the perceptive showed a clear appreciation of Joey’s
subtle insights, “with raised eyebrows and a knowing look,” and focused on the significance of
words such as “dazzled”. The essay on Nicole worked well, too, with many candidates pointing
out that Francis’s narrative affects the reader’s view of her, and the majority discussing the
saint-like imagery used to introduce her. Some noted how the way she speaks to Francis at the
beginning suggests a lively personality, but it was disturbing how some used this, and her
dancing with Larry, to interpret her behaviour as that of some kind of tease, who could be
blamed for what happened to her. Some failed to discuss how she is presented at the end of
the novel, and some who did so, only saw her coldness to Francis. Many, however, saw how
her physical change represented how she had been affected by events, but how her
forgiveness of Francis allowed him to move forward, and noted the significance of her urging
him to become a writer. The question on the novel being a “story of revenge” was also a
popular choice. The best focused on the question, sometimes widening it to consider other
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
40
ideas, such as forgiveness, guilt and so on. This is a sensible way of approaching this sort of
open question, but less convincing were those who said something along the lines of “I don’t
agree with this at all, as I think it is about what makes a hero,” and then proceeded to write an
answer to a question they had presumably already attempted, rather than the one set. Whilst
such responses are given credit for their knowledge of the text, the question needs to be
acknowledged and addressed, even if alternative cases are made, as they often were. Some,
for example, saw it as a tragic love story more than one of revenge, but built consideration of
both ideas into their responses in order to make their point.
Never Let Me Go was also successful in terms of levels of response, if less so in levels of take
up, although this may change in the future. A colleague admitted to being pleasantly surprised
at how candidates had engaged at a complex level with the text and had coped well with what
could be perceived as difficult concepts, such as the unreliable narrator. There was plenty in
the extract for candidates to get their teeth into, and they showed a sound grasp of the shifts in
mood and atmosphere, from relatively light-hearted at the start to something very sinister and
disturbing by the end, picking up on features such as the use of weather, which some, validly,
identified as pathetic fallacy, and the significance of non-human references such as “swarm
out” and “she was afraid of us in the same way someone might be of spiders.” Some even went
a step further and made an interesting connection with Madame’s “you poor creatures” later in
the novel. There were also very perceptive responses to the complexity of the presentation of
Ruth, with most seeing beneath her exterior to identify her insecurities. What was very
noticeable about responses to this text was the excellent use of detail from the text to support
judgements, and this was also evident in thoughtful and sensitive responses to the second
essay, where candidates were invited to consider its description as “a dark and upsetting story.”
This description was agreed to be apt by the majority, who discussed points such as the theme
of cloning, the doomed relationships between the characters, their attitudes to donation and
“completion” and so on. Some identified the relationship between Tommy and Kathy and the
attempts of the staff to ameliorate the lives of the Hailsham students as going some way to
counterbalance some of the darkness of the novel.
The second most popular novel was Hornby’s About A Boy. Candidates had evidently enjoyed
it, but need to be warned about the need to disentangle what happens in the novel from what
happens in the film; although this was not the issue it might have been, warnings at CPD
meetings having been relayed back to the classroom, there was still a blurring of the lines at
times. With the extract, close readers picked up on its opening, and understood Marcus’s
motivation, and most picked up on his gullibility as well as his lack of tact with his mother.
Appreciation of humour is always something of a discriminator, and the best caught the rather
poignant humour here, revealed through Marcus’s train of thought as well as through his
dialogue with his mother. The essay choices on this text were equally popular. The best
answers on Ellie discussed her impact on Marcus, and some broadened their response to
consider how the character contributes to themes of family and the outsider. Some were less
successful in addressing key scenes from the novel where she is involved: this is a useful
process as part of preparation for the exams, sorting out the key parts of the story for the main
characters. Responses to the question about the relationship between Fiona and Marcus varied
in quality. Whilst some were assured and selected key moments from throughout the novel to
support points made, others were less secure in anything beyond “Dead Duck Day”, and were
very critical of Fiona – perhaps understandably.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
41
Although Resistance was the least popular of the prose texts, perhaps for the same reasons as with
Never Let Me Go, in that it could be perceived as relatively demanding, there were, in fact, some
very successful responses from across the ability range. In the extract, the nature of Sheers‘ style
provided plenty for those aspiring towards the highest marks to get their teeth into, whilst the
episode of the shooting of the horse, being central to the story, allowed all to empathise with
George, as well as Maggie, and approached mood and atmosphere that way. There were
perceptive observations of the contrast between the idyllic scene and the sense of impending
danger, and the build up of tension highlighted by the countdown in the penultimate paragraph. The
rich imagery in the powerful last paragraph was also a rich seam for mining. There were also very
strong responses to the character of Maggie, some identifying her as “the glue that held the women
and the valley together,” backing this up with reference to her possession of the wireless, her role
as counterpart to Albrecht, her influence on Sarah, and, of course, her attendance at the fair, which
serves as a catalyst to the novel’s conclusion. The ambiguity of the ending frustrated some
candidates, who really wanted to know what happened to the characters they had invested so
much in, and this was a valid response, provided it was backed up by specific references to the
text, which, to be fair, it was more often than not, with discussion of the diary entry, the dates in the
Bible, the burning of the map, and so on. There was clear evidence of autonomous reading in these
responses which is always a real pleasure to see.
Foundation Tier
It is particularly pleasing to report the high quality of so many Foundation papers, with candidates
showing real engagement with, and detailed knowledge of, the set texts. It was also rather a
pleasant surprise to see responses to virtually all the texts, and those not just from candidates who
may have previously been destined for the Higher tier, and had been changed to Foundation at a
late stage in the process.
Othello worked well, as Shakespeare invariably does (after all, he was writing for a mixed ability
audience!) and candidates found plenty to say about Iago’s speech and behaviour in their
responses to the extract, showing a real engagement with the play’s events. It was noticeable how
even candidates of relatively modest ability had grasped the gist of Iago’s soliloquy. The bullet
points in the other two questions proved helpful in guiding candidates in their responses. Othello
was afforded pretty short shrift by the majority of candidates on this tier, although some could see
how he was helpless under the influence of Iago. Love and jealousy were the most frequently
chosen emotions, as on the Higher tier, with scenes such as Othello’s speech to Brabantio and the
Venetian court at the beginning of the play, his treatment of Desdemona at key points, including the
end, and Iago tricking him into jealous rages were useful points of reference. Some candidates also
discussed other characters involved in the chosen emotions, such as Bianca, Cassio, Roderigo,
and Emilia.
Although Much Ado About Nothing was the least frequently studied play on this tier, as on the
Higher, it was interesting to note that the entry for the play was spread fairly equally between the
two tiers. Those who answered on it identified the quick and witty exchanges between Beatrice and
Benedick in the extract, with some sympathy for the latter. The bullet points for the question about
Claudio were well used, and most candidates showed a sound knowledge of the character and his
part in the play. The second essay choice, although less popular, also provided an opportunity for
candidates to show their knowledge of the play and its characters, and sensible parts of the play
were selected and discussed.
As on the Higher tier, An Inspector Calls was by far and away the most popular play studied for this
paper. The extract worked well, although some candidates got a bit muddled about who was
speaking when, and confused the characters of Mr. and Mrs. Birling. Indeed, some misread the
question and wrote about Mr. Birling. Time taken before writing to sort out the requirements of the
question and to think about how best to respond before writing is invariably time well spent. Most,
however, knew exactly what was going on, with many responding with outrage to Mrs. Birling, and
with horror as she implicated her own son. As always, the best made full use of the stage directions
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
42
in their response. Although the extract led neatly into the essay on responsibility, if candidates
decided that Mrs. Birling was their chosen character, some never got beyond the extract, which
inevitably limited the marks they could be given. Mrs. Birling was by no means the only selected
character here, however, and Mr. Birling, Gerald, Eric, Sheila, and, occasionally, and rather harshly,
Eva herself, were written about. Some worked through the “chain of events” before reaching a
conclusion, whilst some focused on their chosen character from the start, and both were valid
approaches. Some became a bit confused about the sequence of events, and there were the
inevitable film references (on one occasion, a candidate had neatly scored out their reference to
“dress” as the item of clothing being tried on in Milwards, in order to replace it with “hat”!) The
advice to an actor playing Eric was usually soundly done, when candidates made sensible use of
the bullet points. There has been a real improvement in the way candidates tackle this type of
question.
Hobson’s Choice was fairly popular at this level, and candidates, as always, responded well to the
play. With the extract, good responses used their close reading of both stage directions and
dialogue in order to discuss Hobson, and the best noted details such as Hobson’s melodrama and
Tubby’s teasing of him, although, as on the Higher tier, some took him at his word, and were very
concerned at his suicidal tendencies. With the first choice of essay, there were some lovely
“Maggies”, with a clear sense of voice and likely view of events. Although some were limited by a
rather patchy knowledge of the detail of the play, the bullet points helped candidates organise their
responses. The characters of both Willie and Maggie are popular with candidates, but the question
about Willie was the more popular of the two options, with the bullet points again proving useful.
The best were really thoughtful in their discussion of Maggie’s influence on him, and wrote quite
sensitively of their developing relationship. Candidates on the whole seem well able to retain the
detail of this play and use it to good effect.
A Taste of Honey was the second most popular play on this tier, and it proved to work as well on
Foundation as it did on Higher. Candidates were alert to the interactions and tensions between the
three characters, and particularly for Helen’s superficial concern for Jo and harsh treatment of Geof
– the best, for example, picked up on how she refers to him in the third person, “Oh my God, is he
still here? I thought he would be,” as well as noting her contradictions, describing the flat in one
breath as “more cheerful” and the next as “this dump” and her self-centredness. With the essays,
there were some very thoughtful and well referenced discussions of Jo, which would be very useful
to an actor, and, for the second essay choice, the bullet points provided points of access for
candidates’ responses.
It would be a hard hearted person who failed to feel empathy for Paddy in the extract from Paddy
Clarke Ha Ha Ha, and this was indeed evident in the vast majority of responses. As always, the
best tracked the detail of the extract, selecting and highlighting detail, and the very best dealt well
with the idea of Paddy as “ref”. The “Imagine you are Paddy’s da” option was the least popular of
the two essays, and some were limited in their reference to specific incidents from across the novel,
although others did use their knowledge well to support a valid interpretation of the character.
Those who wrote on (iii) usually successfully selected some of Paddy’s many problems, whether in
school, with his friends, or at home.
Heroes was as popular on this tier as it was on the Higher, and was equally successful here,
working for candidates across the whole ability range. There were engaged responses to the
character of Larry LaSalle, with the best selecting and highlighting detail from throughout the extract
to support their points, such as the candidate who commented on his “You are all stars” as “a truly
cringeworthy thing to say.” Those achieving at the top of the mark range showed a clear
understanding of subtext, and used phrases like “Larry seemed to be..” and recognised that Francis
was writing from hindsight. Some made a perceptive link between Larry making something out of
nothing, not only with the “lumps of clay” and unwanted items, but also with the misfits amongst the
young people of Frenchtown. As on the Higher tier, however, some thought it was Larry who was
the bully, and some responses were not thorough enough to achieve 8 or above out of 10. Both
essay choices were popular. There were mixed views of Nicole, some seeing her as rather
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
43
reluctant and shy in her developing relationship with Francis, although this was, perhaps, with the
benefit of hindsight, as others saw her as vivacious and lively, so that the change in her after her
assault by Larry LaSalle was all the more marked. With the essay on revenge, some took a
narrative driven approach, which was fine, so long as the idea of revenge was in there. Some were
a bit confused about the order of events, however – understandable, perhaps, owing to the use of
flashbacks in the structure of the novel.
Never Let Me Go was a rarer choice on this tier, but those who answered on it usually had a clear
and sometimes thoughtful understanding of the events in the extract, and showed empathy for the
students. The bullet points were well used by those who wrote about Ruth. There were mixed
responses to her character, but with this novel there did not seem to be the sort of confusion
between characters that is sometimes evident. The open nature of the question on upsetting parts
of the novel was well received by those who chose it, and there were certainly plenty for them to
choose from. Responses to this text from candidates across the ability range were engaged and
often well informed – it seems to have caught their imagination.
The second most popular prose text on this tier was, as on the Higher tier, About A Boy. The extract
worked well, with candidates showing an understanding of how it fitted into the story line, and
showing an understanding of Marcus’s clumsy and ill-advised attempts at matchmaking, as well as
the reasons for it. You could almost feel the winces as Marcus told his mum she looked “a wreck”,
but many candidates really felt for him having to listen to Bob Marley, which some seemed to count
as tantamount to child abuse (and as for Joni Mitchell, when they came to discussing that...!) The
question about Ellie worked well, with the best starting from their first encounter outside the Head’s
office and tracing her journey through the novel. Most had sound detail, including her obsession
with Kurt Cobain, her teasing of Marcus, but also her stout defence of him, and some showed some
sensitivity in discussing her home life, as well as an understanding of how the end of Marcus’s
infatuation with her was prompted by her behaviour on the train journey. Both essays suffered from
references to the film version of the novel, but most responses were nevertheless well grounded in
the text. Many recognised Marcus’s need to break free from the influence of his mother; those who
used the extract as fodder for their response sometimes struggled to find much else to say. When
candidates on this tier are invited to write about two or three times showing different stages in a text,
useful advice would be that they should aim for two or three distinct times (from the beginning
and/or middle and end is a handy guideline here).
Responses to the extract from Resistance on this tier tended to describe what was happening and
showed an awareness of the tension in the scene, with those achieving the higher marks selecting
and highlighting some of the detail such as George seeing Maggie’s lips moving highlighting his
concentration and tension. Some, however, failed to make much, if anything, of the last few
sentences, and others fell into feature spotting (“cross hairs shiver” being labelled as
personification, without discussion of what it meant, or “tall thistles” being identified, inaccurately, as
alliteration, for example). With the essays, once again the bullet points were helpful in both
instances. As on the Higher tier, they found plenty to write about Maggie, and, although most had
formed their own ideas about what happened at the end of the novel, many felt a sense of
disappointment at its sudden and inconclusive ending. Some, however, responded more positively
to the ending being left to the reader’s imagination. In some centres, individual candidates had
different ideas as to what may have happened, showing, as on the Higher tier, that they had been
encouraged to think independently.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
44
Unit 2b – Contemporary drama and literary heritage prose
Higher Tier
As with Unit 2a, although all texts were studied somewhere or other, and all worked well with the full
range of candidates, there were clear front runners – in this case, Blood Brothers, with A View from
the Bridge a pretty close second for the drama text, and Lord of the Flies the “winner” for the prose
text, with, in second place, some way behind, A Christmas Carol.
The History Boys had quite a number of takers; it was actually the third most popular of the plays,
although it would be safe to say that Blood Brothers and A View from the Bridge are quite secure in
their positions. It certainly demands a high level of maturity from students, but many had risen to the
occasion, and showed an appreciation of its themes and humour, although others were less
successful. With the extract, all could say something about Hector and about how the boys had
turned out, although not all grasped the significance of the Headmaster’s speech, missing its
dramatic irony. Those who did appreciate the irony, and worked at the detail of the extract, including
its stage directions, were well rewarded. Wise candidates started with the pathos of the stage
directions at the beginning of the extract. When it came to the essays, relatively few chose to write
as Scripps, but those who did so often did very well, discussing the other boys and teachers in the
school, with the best capturing a valid voice. Most agreed with the statement upon which the
second essay question was based, and responses revealed a clear, and often sensitive, grasp of
the main themes of the play and of its characters. Unsurprisingly, the French lesson/brothel scene
often featured as an example of something “funny”. Many noted that the contrasting emotions often
go hand in hand, as, indeed, was evidenced in the extract.
Blood Brothers has increased in popularity over the years, and continues to flourish under the new
specification. As this report is written, it has just been announced that the musical’s days as a stage
show, certainly in London, and possibly touring, are numbered, and perhaps this will have some
effect on its take up. As intimated at the start of this report, some candidates struggled to find the
vocabulary to articulate the mood and atmosphere, but many clearly appreciated it, recognising the
familiar scene of reluctant children being hustled out of the house, and Mrs. Johnstone’s teasing of
Mickey. Some missed that Mrs. Johnstone was quoting when she said “Oh, my sweet darling,” and
some over read the reference to Sammy. The fact that he runs through the house, pulling on a
jacket does not really make him a sinister figure; one candidate enthusiastically speculated, “We
never find out what a dole was but I bet it is another name for a battle ground where they battle with
their BB guns and see who wins it”. Some stopped their analysis of their extract when they get on
the bus, and so missed how the conductor’s contribution affects the mood and atmosphere. There
were mixed responses to the Linda empathy question. Some were extremely moving and
convincing, packed with useful detail from across the play, but some had more limited coverage.
One would think that surely she would talk about the deaths of the twins, but some limited their
discussion to their childhood, or, at the other extreme, a few did what was effectively a write-on,
which, whilst it could show empathy, was not the best way to show off detailed knowledge to the
play, which is a prerequisite for the higher bands of marks. One rather remarkable response
achieving at a high level, owing to its levels of detail, sensitivity and evaluation, was written as a
monologue, complete with stage directions. Blood Brothers can seem deceptively simple, and it has
been noted before that candidates often come unstuck when writing about themes, which again
happened to some attempting the question on superstition. Most could see that as it was important
to Mrs. Johnstone, and, increasingly, to Mrs. Lyons, it is certainly significant, and some then went
on to discuss other contributory factors, with many drawing a convincing conclusion that a variety of
factors leads to the deaths of the twins. Some, however, did not get much beyond the superstition
of shoes on the table, or surmised that only working class people are superstitious. Those who
linked it to power and powerlessness, and therefore to the changing situations of the women, were
on much more fruitful ground.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
45
A View from the Bridge also goes from strength to strength, and works well for candidates
across the whole ability range. There was plenty in the extract for all candidates to work at,
from those who tracked through and discussed the characters, their feelings and motivations, to
those who showed a clear overview of the delicate balance of power, Alfieri’s tact, and Eddie’s
lack of self-knowledge, frustration, and increasing frustration. We all owe Arthur Miller a debt of
gratitude for his very useful stage directions, which candidates often analysed with great
success. There were interesting discussions of the character of Catherine in the first of the
essay questions. Perhaps it was the wording of the question, but significant numbers of
candidates seemed very critical of her, to the extent of regarding her, as a colleague put it, “as
a scheming temptress,” and, for example, seeing her calling Eddie “a rat” as completely
unjustified, neglecting to mention why she did so. Some focused disproportionately on how she
is presented at the beginning of the play, and failed to discuss the progression in her character.
As has been mentioned before, knowing the most important parts of the story for each main
character is a useful part of preparation for the exam. Many, however, wrote sensitively of her
development from naive girl to confident woman, and how her meeting Rodolfo serves as a
catalyst for the change in her. The second essay option was also popular, and it was an
enjoyable question to mark, as it threw candidates on their own resources. Many methodically
discussed each theme, although others took what proved to be a successful route, of focusing
on key scenes in the play and highlighting how the themes are often interwoven therein, as in
“Eddie’s passion drives him to betray his family and so lose his honour”.
Although relatively few centres study Be My Baby at the moment, it proved a very successful
text (“this lovely play,” to quote a hardened examiner!) for those who chose to do so, including
the most able candidates. There were some sensitive analyses of the poignant undercurrents
between Mary and her mother, as well as appreciation of the humour in the scene. The choice
of essays was fairly evenly split. The open question on which girl was sympathised with most
had some interesting outcomes. Obviously, Mary was a popular choice, but Queenie also
featured a lot, and at least one candidate wrote very sensitively about Norma. There were also
very sound and thoughtful responses to the second essay choice.
My Mother Said I Never Should was the least popular choice of play on this paper, but those
who wrote on it responded with real engagement. The extract elicited very sensitive responses
to the special relationship between grandmother and granddaughter, and, again, those who
looked closely at the stage directions were well served, as were those who addressed the
ending of the extract. Some took umbrage on Doris’s behalf when Rosie said, “You’re working
class Lancashire, aren’t you?”, thinking she was being rude to her grandmother, although that
in itself is proof of the involvement candidates felt for the characters. The question on Jackie
worked well in making candidates examine the character’s sometimes complex motivations,
and responses were often successful in embedding references to the detail of the text. The
second choice gave them plenty to write about. Some were rather narrative driven, but most
managed to maintain focus on the question.
Silas Marner continues to work well for those who choose to use it, and it elicits sound
responses from candidates of all abilities, with its clear storyline and strong characterisation.
There were some very sensitive responses to the touching scene portrayed in the extract, with
most candidates recognising Marner’s excitement and trepidation, and the final line, “But she’ll
be my little un....She’ll be nobody else’s” was highlighted successfully by virtually all. The
question on Godfrey Cass worked well in differentiating responses: most could re-tell his part in
the story, but those operating at a higher level were able to form an overview of his importance.
After all, it was his character who brought together Silas and Eppie. Others evaluated his
contribution to the themes of the novel, whilst some, usually those working at the very highest
levels, discussed his character in the light of Victorian morals and religious beliefs. With the
second essay, some missed the significance of the italics, so wrote about change in the
character, as opposed to change in the novel, although they could still get a long way via this
route, and there were some very thoughtful and often evaluative explorations of how and why
Marner changed. Some, again, usually those operating at the highest levels, extended their
discussion to consider moral and religious issues, as well as the effects of the Industrial
Revolution, as evidenced in Lantern Yard, for example.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
46
Another “old favourite” is, of course, Pride and Prejudice, and this is also tackled by the whole
ability range. Most wrote with engagement and understanding on the extract, although those
who failed to put it in context, taking the “unseen” approach, were at a disadvantage, in their
assertions that the reader is agog to hear the news Elizabeth has for her mother. The majority,
however, explored the mood changes between the characters, and enjoyed the thought of a
speechless Mrs. Bennet. Some, perhaps, overdid the tension at the expense of the humour, but
most responses wrote with real enjoyment of the impact of Elizabeth’s news on her mother, and
highlighted the sense of anticipation whilst waiting for the outcome. Darcy was a popular choice
of changing character in the first of the essays, as was Elizabeth, and candidates used the text
well to chart the progression of their chosen character. There were interesting responses to the
question on different attitudes to love, with many making sound observations on Charlotte
Lucas’s pragmatic approach, set within the context of the time, and comparing it with
Elizabeth’s attitudes. Lydia and Wickham were, understandably, given very short shrift, and
some predicted that they may end up in a similar situation to Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. Responses
were typified by their detailed knowledge and confidence in the text.
A Christmas Carol was the second most popular prose text, and it has proved another
successful addition to the list. All found plenty to say about the extract, but some could have
been more selective in their quotation. Dickens’ writing can be dense, and more practice at
selecting from it would be time well spent. Having said that, there was plenty of imagery for
candidates to get their teeth into, and many did so with considerable success, exploring, for
example, the “solitary as an oyster” detail, with its implications of inner riches. The best had an
overview of the character’s extreme meanness, and had no difficulty in supporting that with
detail from the extract. The best answers to the question on Bob Cratchit managed to weave
their excellent knowledge of the text with understanding of the historical context, and also
appreciated the significance of Bob’s importance in Scrooge’s redemption. Less successful
responses were perhaps a bit over dependent on films they may have seen, and discussion
was limited to Bob’s behaviour at the beginning and end of the novel, with a passing reference
to Tiny Tim. The question on the spirits was the more popular of the two. Many worked through
all the manifestations, sometimes including Marley’s ghost, too, before reaching a conclusion,
and although this is a valid approach, it sometimes limited the depth of response, and perhaps
those who focused on their chosen spirit, and wrote in detail about it, then making reference to
the others in order to justify its selection, did themselves better justice. Again, film versions got
in the way of some of these responses, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed by
those teaching the text. The “favourite” spirit was probably that of Christmas Yet To Come, by
the way, although that of the Present ran it a close second. To conclude with a quotation from a
colleague: “All answers, even at the lowest level, seemed to find this text rewarding and to
engage with the idea that money and happiness don’t necessarily go together.” Not a bad
lesson to get from one’s study of literature!
Lord of the Flies was the runaway success on this paper; more answered on this novel than on
any other text. There were some excellent analyses of the extract, discussing, for example, how
Jack’s circling black cloak “denotes villainy in his presentation as the antithesis of the anti-hero”
or looking closely at words and their effects, such as, “creature”, ”diamond haze” and “vaulted”,
with its connotations of strength and assurance. Others found plenty to say about the
description of the beach and the contrasting behaviour of the boys.
Some spent too long putting the extract into context of what had happened before and would
happen after, whilst others were equally ill served by putting it into no context at all, and treating
it an unseen (“We wonder who this boy is..”) The best responses found a middle way. The
question about which boy the candidate has most sympathy for worked well, as it tested
detailed knowledge of the novel, but also pushed for discussion and evaluation of characters
and relationships. Piggy, predictably, was a popular choice, as was Simon, but cases were
made for Ralph, and even Jack and Roger, and as long as a convincing case was made,
backed up by detail from the text, every opinion was valid, and treated as such. The
“breakdown in order” question was popular, and very well done, on the whole. What was
particularly impressive was how candidates of relatively modest ability showed an
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
47
understanding of how Golding uses the structure and the language of the novel to represent the
breakdown of order. A pitfall with this text can be an over emphasis on the allegorical
significance of events and characters, but on the whole this was avoided. A good thing, as a
Literature examination is not really the time for an extended discussion on Hitler, Goering, and
other historical characters.
Ash on a Young Man’s Sleeve was the minority choice on this paper, but responses on it were
no better or worse than those on any other text, and, again, candidates wrote with engagement
from a background of knowledge. The extract worked well, as most found plenty to say about
the action and the behaviour of the characters, Uncle Bertie, in particular, and, as always, it
was the better answers who also had the confidence to discuss the humour. Those who chose
to write about Leo discussed his role within the family, his relationship with Megan, and his
involvement in contemporary events, but the more popular essay was the second one, perhaps
because it allowed candidates to set their own agenda, and responses ranged from those who
retold parts of the novel, with an emphasis on those which particularly affected Dannie, to really
perceptive essays with a clear overview of how the war and events in Europe gradually came
closer and closer to home, and the effects this had on Dannie and his family. The ability to
move from general to specific and back again is the mark of someone working at a high level,
and, perhaps because this question prompted candidates to do so, many rose to the challenge.
Foundation Tier
As mentioned previously, it was a joy to see candidates at this level writing with real confidence
and engagement on the texts here, and this could be said to be one of the most successful byproducts of the new specification. Whole classes, for example, had evidently read, and enjoyed,
Silas Marner and Pride and Prejudice, although, as on the Higher tier, the Golding and Dickens
were the most frequently studied novels. With the plays, Blood Brothers was the most popular
by a long way. It is also worth noting that the entry for this option was significantly smaller than
that for 2a Foundation.
Understandably, there were relatively few who had studied The History Boys on this tier, and
probably quite a few of the ones seen were from candidates who may have been originally
destined for the Higher tier. Nevertheless, most managed to find plenty to say about the extract,
expressing their opinions on Hector and the boys in the main. The bullet points provided a
helpful scaffold for those who chose to write as Scripps, but more chose the second option, and
the scene in the French brothel was the most often chosen as funny, and many would agree
with that, whilst Hector’s breaking down in tears was a similarly sensible choice as a sad part.
There was nothing in the responses seen to suggest that this text cannot work as well as any
other at this level.
Blood Brothers, on the other hand, was the most frequently studied text on this tier by a long
way, and its existence on the list presumably drove the decision to opt for 2b. The extract
allowed candidates to engage with the character of Mrs. Johnstone, and many wrote very
affectionately about her, the warmth of her relationship with Mickey, in particular, and the best
tracked right through to the end and discussed her response to the conductor with some
insight. There were some responses, however, where the influence of the Spoken Language
Study became evident, and not in a very productive way, with candidates asserting, for
example, that because the character says “goin’” as opposed to “going” this shows that she is
not only working class, but has had a bad education. There were some lovely, and often very
detailed, essays as Linda. Candidates at this level are perhaps not as self-conscious as those
on the Higher tier, as they often do really well on this type of question. The bullet points were
helpful in steering candidates away from unbalanced responses, which is always an issue with
this text in particular, although some still managed not to mention the very end of the play –
maybe Linda was so traumatised by the shootings that she had blanked out the memory! Some
were a bit confused about what had happened when. The bullet points for the second essay
also helped candidates get on the right track, although it was something of a revelation to read
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
48
that “Liverpool in the 1980s had a notoriously superstitious Roman Catholic society”. The better
answers used details such as “shoes on the table” and the initial contrast between the two
mothers, but went beyond that to discuss the change in Mrs. Lyons, the contribution of the
narrator, and picked up on evidence of the younger generation absorbing some of the
superstitious beliefs. Some misread “superstition” as “suspicion” but could still be given credit
for the knowledge and understanding shown.
A View from the Bridge, although the second most popular play, had far fewer takers than
Blood Brothers, but, as always, it was very successful in eliciting engaged and knowledgeable
responses. Asking candidates to write about both characters worked well, and there was plenty
to say. Some wrote more on one character than the other, whilst the best focused on the
interaction between them. As always, the stage directions provided good opportunities for
accessing the subtext. The provision of bullet points again was helpful to candidates in
organising their response to the question on Catherine, and to ensuring coverage of the whole
text, which is almost as much of an issue with this text as it is with Blood Brothers. Most wrote
confidently about her relationships early in the play, and how those changed and developed,
and these were very often supported by apt detail from the text, although the quotation
attributed to Sigmund Freud, that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” could be usefully be borne
in mind for those discussing the opening scenes of the play. The second question was the less
popular of the two, with passion and betrayal being most often written about. The kisses scene
and the ending of the play were obvious and sensible choices of scene, but it should be noted
that these really need to be set in some sort of overall context, which, although suggested by
the “important to what happens” part of the question, is not always done. Some responses,
however, were well detailed and thoughtful, with an emerging overview that would not have
gone amiss on the Higher tier.
There were not many answers on Be My Baby at this level, but those candidates who wrote on
it found plenty to say about Mrs. Adams as shown in the extract, with many seeing beyond her
brusqueness to her concern for her family. The breaks in her speech, and the disjointed
exchanges with Mary were often noted and discussed by those achieving the higher marks. As
on the Higher tier, Mary and Queenie were the most frequent choices of characters deserving
of sympathy, and responses showed a real engagement with the play and its characters. The
second essay choice was the less popular option, and, as was highlighted above in the
comments on A View from the Bridge, “parts of the play” selected for discussion cannot really
be treated in isolation, although the best answers put the selected parts in some overall
context.
My Mother Said I Never Should appeared not to have been studied at this level, which is a pity,
as the extract certainly proved accessible and engaging to candidates working at the lower
reaches of the Higher tier, as did the essays.
As always, Silas Marner elicited some very touching responses from candidates of all abilities.
It is lovely to see the power of Eliot’s writing having an impact on candidates on this tier, who
wrote with engagement about the relationships between the characters in the extract. They also
were not backward in coming forward with their views on Godfrey, with the bullet points giving
them a useful steer through his story. It would be fair to say that the majority who answered on
this did not hold him in high regard. The same could not be said for Silas, who was the most
often chosen by far as deserving of sympathy. Papers where this was the chosen novel were
almost invariably a pleasure to read.
It was also good to see candidates on this tier writing with confidence and engagement on
Pride and Prejudice, which was actually studied by a significant minority, and by more, rather
surprisingly, perhaps, than Silas Marner. There were some lovely responses to the extract, with
its focus on Mrs. Bennet, and most noted the unusualness of her being lost for words, and,
indeed, were entertained by it, although some took it more seriously and were genuinely
worried about what her reaction may be. With the essay about who changes the most, some,
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
49
quite validly, considered several characters before coming to a conclusion, with Darcy and
Elizabeth being the most frequent choices, which was also the case for those who wrote about
their chosen character from the start. So long as the answers were supported by detailed
reference to the text, and they almost invariably were, either approach was acceptable. There
was a refreshing nature to the responses at this level to the essay on love, too. Elizabeth
featured in most responses, but for the second character, there was quite a range offered, from
one of her parents, to Charlotte Lucas, to Jane, Lydia, Wickham, and Mr. Collins. The latter
worked particularly well, owing to the key scene of his proposal which includes both him and
Elizabeth. As with Silas Marner, it was a pleasure to read responses to this novel on
Foundation tier, as they were rarely to be found in significant numbers at this level in the past.
There was almost a tie in the popularity stakes between A Christmas Carol and Lord of the
Flies, with the Dickens just pipping Golding at the post. Although the extract describing Scrooge
was relatively short, it was so packed with detail that candidates could hardly fail to happen
upon fruitful ground to select and highlight, although, as on the Higher tier, some tended to
quote at excessive length. The shorter the quotations the better, is a useful maxim to follow. In
both tiers, some of the language in the extract eluded candidates, but details such as “hard and
sharp as flint”, “solitary as an oyster” and the reference to the guide dogs, and to Scrooge even
being avoided by beggars, amongst other parts of the passage, were successfully discussed by
those achieving the highest marks. Although the extract was nicely self-contained, some were
tempted to drift into the rest of the story, although, of course, it was good practice to indicate
that this is the impression of him at the start of the novel. Both essays were fairly equally
popular, with the one on the spirits perhaps a bit more so. The bullet points in both instances
were well used by most candidates. Some of the many film versions became intertwined with
some of the discussions of both Bob and the spirits, and this is something about which we all
need to be vigilant: even those of us who thought we knew the novel extremely well were
having to check details from this time and again, and candidates need to be straight about what
happens in the text, as writing about the film (a miniaturised Scrooge being chased through the
streets by Death driving a coach and horses, for example) will not be credited as detailed
reference! With the question on Bob, the best got beyond empathising with him on his very
minimum wage, to discuss his need to retain his job, and how his warm family life, despite its
deprivations and the suffering of Tiny Tim (or little Timmy, as he was rather charmingly called
by one candidate!), serves as a harsh contrast with Scrooge’s isolation, and went on to show
how the two are brought together at the end. For the second essay, all three spirits, as well as
Marley’s ghost sometimes, were selected, and most candidates did well in their responses,
with the help of the bullets, although there was some, perhaps understandable, blurring of the
spirits in some cases, and this is another aspect that could be usefully focused on in
preparation.
Lord of the Flies was a very popular choice of novel, too. Candidates had evidently enjoyed it,
and it elicited engaged and informed responses. Almost all recognised that the extract came
from the beginning of the novel, when the boys meet, and details picked up on were such
things as the ominous reference to “something dark” and “creature”, Jack’s appearance, and
the contrast with Ralph. Close readers commented on the use of “the boy,” and noted the
presence of the conch. Red hair was often seen as linked to evil, by those searching rather
relentlessly for symbolism, and some felt very sorry for the choir having to wear all those
clothes on such a hot day. With the first essay, many chose Piggy as most deserving of
sympathy, although other characters cropped up too, and some considered a few before
deciding on one. All such approaches were judged on their merits and on the knowledge and
understanding shown, which was usually very good. Some explored the symbolic nature of the
boys, and as long as the responses did not turn into ones which would sit more happily in a
History or R.E. script, this, too, was acceptable. The question on the breakdown of order was
not quite as popular as the character one, but nevertheless, many wrote sensibly key points in
the novel, with the deaths, the fire, and the conch featuring somewhere in most responses.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
50
Although Ash on a Young Man’s Sleeve was the least studied prose text on this tier, as it was
on the Higher, most who wrote on it engaged with the slapstick element of the action, and the
eccentricities of Uncle Bertie, and some went beyond this to discuss his behaviour in more
depth. The bullet points proved facilitating for those who wrote about Leo, but the more popular
of the two essay choices was the second, which allowed candidates to show their detailed
knowledge of their chosen parts of the text, and it was impressive how details of how the text
had been retained by many who answered on it.
Therefore, those sleepless nights were perhaps not needed, as the “new” papers worked as
well as, if not better than, any set in the past. The efforts to have some sort of continuity,
through the retention of some legacy texts, and the styles of questions, doubtless had
something to do with it, but more is undoubtedly owed to the very hard work that has gone on in
centres, departments, and classrooms (and, indeed, the homes of students preparing for the
exam). My thanks to all involved, as well as to the examiners, who also had quite a mountain to
climb, with all those “new” texts!
GCSE English, English Language and English Literature Examiners Report/Summer 2012/HJ
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
51
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
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.