A2 ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
ELLA 3 INTEGRATED ANALYSIS AND TEXT ADAPTATION
MOCK EXAM FEEDBACK – THE RELEVANT EXAMINER’S REPORT
Below is an edited copy of the examiner's report for the timed work you sat in the last week of term. It is a report written for teachers, with the purpose of improving student performance in the exam.
Bare in mind it is a report written based on results for the whole country. Also bare in mind it is a report in which the exam board will want to present themselves as professional and their A Level a rigorous, enjoyable and challenging.
Section A
Question 1: Analytical comparison
Successful students:
• demonstrated secure analytical ability, having planned their answers and followed a systematic framework, which reflected excellent understanding
• compared the unseen texts judiciously, employing either the “anchor text” method to help root their initial analysis, or using an integrated approach from the start
• used appropriate terminology to develop analytical comparisons and engage with the meaning of texts
• found interesting comparative points, often by focusing on the different attitudes seen in the texts
• used the three point critical sentence (point-example-comment) to underpin their analysis and commentary.
Less successful students:
• did not read the three texts carefully enough and made unwarranted assumptions about the meanings of the texts, particularly Text C, and the speakers in Text A
• made superficial comparisons that added little to textual interpretation
• commented on individual or isolated lexical items to the exclusion of an effective overview of each text
• wrote three separate mini-essays on each text in turn, with only occasional links being made
• seldom mentioned the attitudes and feelings of the speakers or writers in the three texts.
Most students were able to produce a well-structured response with an overview dealing with the purpose and context of each text followed by a comparative consideration of the texts. Many students chose to deal with each text in the order that they appeared on the paper, making comparisons as they went along. Many also chose to use one text as an anchor text and compared the other two texts to this one. Those students who followed a pre-determined framework were often able to comment on significant features and produced thoughtful engagement with the meanings within the three texts, two of which were relatively accessible to virtually everyone, although most found Text C a greater challenge.
The weaker responses engaged in feature-spotting which, at worst, led to superficial comparison at the expense of engagement with meaning, as in the following examples: ‘Text B also uses lexis’ - not very illuminating - or ‘Text A, like Text B, uses many adjectives’ - but then failing to note the ways in which they were used to help convey attitudes in the texts.
‘Positive’ and ‘Negative’ lexis were often identified, but with little explanation or contextualisation. The use of ‘high-frequency’ and ‘low-frequency’ words can provide an interesting comparative basis, but some students have only a hazy understanding of the terms and few actually say meaningful things about them unless they focus on their particular significance within the text. A large number of students demonstrated their knowledge of word classes and significant features of speech, but sometimes this simply led to responses which identified nouns, dynamic verbs, fillers and pauses; again, in their answers there was little attempt to engage with meaning.
However, where students did use a systematic framework effectively, there was some highly effective comparative analysis, with interesting points made about the traditions of maiden names being carried on in Text A, as against the loss of maiden names and identity in Text C; the way thought had gone into the naming of a child in Text A but not in Text B. Other fruitful aspects for comparative comment included:
• the use of structure to explore the topics
• the journalistic style of Text B
• adjacency pairs in Text A
• the three stanza form and structure of Text C.
Systematic frameworks for analysis should always be applied in full recognition of the focus of the question if students are to produce focused, relevant responses.
Larkin’s poem proved the most elusive of the texts for students to engage with, although there were some perceptive points about his use of personification to highlight loss of identity through marriage and the importance of asking questions within the poem; similarly, the speech provided students with plenty of opportunity to show their knowledge of speech features within the context of the conversation in Text A and most had knowledge of relevant terminology. The best responses noted the directness of the questions (thus providing an interesting comparative angle with Text C) and the ease with which the two speakers interacted. Some unconvincing points about about dominance and boredom did surface in some answers, however. Students noted the conventional joke-like start to Text B, commented on the listing of names and frequently on the use of verbs like ‘scoured’ to show the difficulties of the investigative process. These points often gave a starting point for detailed analysis and comparison giving rise to clear and thoughtful responses.
Section B
Question 2: Cupcakes and Kalashnikovs
This was the more popular of the two set texts for Section B, and the question was tackled with varying degrees of success.
Some answers to this question were written as if they were contemporaneous accounts of the situation in 1916 rather than as a historical account of how things were at that time. Those who interpreted the question in the former way created difficulties for themselves. However, due allowance was given to those who interpreted the question in this manner. Sadly what this frequently led to was a polemic about the need for birth control. Some students discussed the pros and cons of religious objections, and some equated birth control with abortion. Good answers provided a context (including their piece as part of a series) and wrote a clear, historically placed account of developments in the early part of the century making good use of the source material.
Some of the other problems that surfaced with this task were that Malthus was frequently seen as the inventor of the pill. This invites the question: “Had students studied the specified section of Cupcakes and Kalashnikovs in sufficient detail, or were they responding to the passage almost as an unseen text?
Among the technical weaknesses seen in these answers was a loss of control of noun/pronoun concord as in ‘Many women … She …’ and inconsistent use of verb tenses.
