Year 11
English Language Revision
1
Student Name:__________________________�Teacher: ________________________________
Language Paper 1 November 2018 Questions, models, examiner reports | Pages 2-23 |
Language Paper 2 November 2018 Questions, models, examiner reports | Pages 24-47 |
Language Paper 1
November 2018 Past Paper
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Language Paper 1: Question 2 Model (8 marks) | |
The writer uses a metaphor, “great evil god” to emphasise the power of the Tyrannosaurus Rex. The noun “God” has connotations of omniscient and omnipotent suggesting the dinosaur pocesses great amounts of power. “great evil” has connotations of the devil which creates a contrast against God, adding emphasise to how powerful, yet brutal the monster is. The writer after uses the adjective “delicate” which creates an oxymoron and confuses the reader as it is hard to understand how it is possible for this barbarous creature to be so soft and elegant. The writer also uses the simile, “gleam of pebbled skin like the armour of a terrible warrior” suggesting the dinosaur is a ruthless solider who has layers of thick, protective skin that is unpiercable. The adjective “pebbled” demonstrates that the skin is rigid and not smooth. We can infer that the writer is creating this monstrous image of the dinosaur that is serverly inpleasnt to look at. The noun “warrior” suggests it has been through a lot of pain and suffering but also has a skillful side to become an almighty solider. Examiner Comments: Perceptive understanding of language; sometimes lacks the language skills to explain but AO6 not tested on Q2. | |
9
Language Paper 1: Question 2 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
The key skill for Question 2 is the analysis of language, and reproducing the relevant lines in the question paper once again assisted students in focusing their initial selection appropriately: very few commented on language from outside the correct lines. The bullet points continue to be helpful in guiding the majority of student responses, although there is still confusion for some as to their function. There is no requirement to cover all the bullet points, which is why the question includes the words ‘you could include’ rather than ‘you must include’. Typically, students who insisted on trying to make a relevant point about sentence forms struggled because sentence forms were not a particular feature of the given lines in this source, although they may be in another source. Students who focused on the most relevant bullet points for this source and then explored the effects of their selected examples of language in depth were more successful. Within the given lines, there was a wealth of rich language employed by Bradbury to describe the T-Rex. One of the most popular choices to analyse was the phrase ‘great oiled, resilient, striding legs’, mainly because it was in the opening sentence of the given lines, and this worked well for the students who concentrated on the use of ‘oiled’ and suggested the T-Rex was a smoothly functioning machine designed to kill. It worked less well, however, for those who had little idea of the meaning of ‘resilient’. The simile ‘pebbled skin like the armour of a terrible warrior’ was frequently selected, with the effect of conveying how this mighty, ruthless soldier had a protective shield that was completely impenetrable, suggesting it was impossible to beat in battle. There was also successful analysis of ‘great evil god’ from the most able students, who were able to examine the paradox of worshipping and revering an omnipotent, all-powerful being but also being fearful of it. The students who did less well on this question identified and labelled language features but failed to comment on the effect on the reader or explain a reason behind the writer’s choices. Some offered a basic, generic comment, for example, ‘it creates a picture in our heads’, which could apply to any example of language in the given lines. Others looked at connotations of words without consideration of context, for example, they chose the phrase ‘delicate arms’ and said this suggested the T-Rex was dainty. There were also students who selected very lengthy examples rather than focusing on individual | |
10
Language Paper 1: Question 2 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
words or phrases, and this frequently led to paraphrasing and discussion of ideas rather than analysis of language. However, on the whole, students made appropriate selections of language to analyse; they employed subject terminology to enhance; they did not write at unnecessary length; and they focused on the effects of the writer’s choice of specific words and phrases and analysed to the best of their ability. | |
11
12
Language Paper 1: Question 3 Model (8 marks) | |
At the start of the text the writer focuses our attention on the jungle and their surroundings. The writer talks about how there is murmuring and sounds of the jungle but then suddenly it cuts to a single word sentence “silence” which really focuses your attention and changes the atmosphere. Right after the silence its followed by a crack of thunder and thats when the t-rex gets introduced. The writer shifts our attention from the jungle to the silence then to the T-rex so that it has a big atmospheric build up like a final boss. It goes a long in the beginning the atmosphere changes from focused to silence then to fear. After the first few small paragraphs the writer then introduces a large paragraph of text dedicated to the beast. In this paragraph the writer instantly zooms in the t-rexs’ legs, ,giving it lots of detail and explaining exactly what they look like. The writer goes from body part to body part explaining why the creature is so terrifying and why it is so unbeatable. The writer does this so that we can see they are easily outmatched against this terrifying creature. The writer structured this in such a way that made it seem like it was from the view of one of the paniced hunters. I say this because perspectives are switched quickly and the focus is scanning the creature from toe to head. The text in the paragraph is also all bunched up together and it seems like these are all thoughts going through that hunters head quickly because of how terrified they are. After the paragraph of the t-rexs detail it goes back to short paragraphs until the end where they have the final show-down with the beast. The writer first focuses on the monster taking its colossial lunge forward and the fact he cleared 100 yards in six seconds. Then suddenly the writer shifts the focus onto the guns and the T-rex, where it engulfs the bullets like it was nothing. The writer does this to further demonstrate the dominance that the T-rex has over the hunting squad. At the end it is seemed that all is lost because the writer focuses on the T-rex leaning down to kill the men and easily taking the shots. However in a juxtaposing scene the hunters shoot and kill the t-rex, the writer focusing on the t-rex falling like he is still the king of the jungle. Examiner Comments: Perceptive and detailed understanding of structural features; analyses the effects of the writer's choices; range of judicious examples with sophisticated use of subject terminology. | |
13
Language Paper 1: Question 3 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
Increasingly, students have taken on board the demands of Question 3, and most now understand that the key skill, the analysis of structure, is a matter of looking at what happens where and why, and what impact this has on the reader’s understanding of the text as a whole. This was a source that was structured in a different way from those in previous series: there was no flashback or flash forward or obvious circular structure. Instead, the writer established a setting, introduced characters into that setting, alternated throughout between the description of the T-Rex and the dialogue of the characters, and gradually built up to a climax at the end when the T-Rex fell. Students across the ability range were able to understand the structural patterns that were apparent and examine the sequencing, structural shifts and movement through the text. The majority of students found the bullet points effective as a framework for their responses. Some recognised that the effect of describing the jungle as peaceful and natural at the beginning was a deliberate ploy by the writer to lull the reader into a false sense of security. Others identified the anticipation created by the sequencing of ‘Suddenly’, followed by ‘Silence’, followed by ‘A sound of thunder’, and that we, as readers, and also the characters, do not find out until the next line that the cause of this is the T-Rex. Others examined the gradual change in Eckels’ attitude, from the early confidence of boasting about his hunting exploits to being scared when the T-Rex then sees them and increasingly petrified as the source develops. Better students were able to explain how the writer used description to build up the T-Rex into an unbeatable, invincible machine so that the ending is completely unexpected because no one anticipates that the humans will be the victors.There was evidence from this series that students are beginning to recognise structural patterns that are significant to the development of the plot and link them together effectively. Students who did not do so well frequently used phrases such as 'at the beginning', 'in the middle' and 'at the end' but then narrated too much of the story, rather than considering not only what is happening where but the reasons why, and how reading about this at this point added to their understanding of the text as a whole. Some of the less able students dealt only with the opening few lines, even though the question instructs them to ‘think about the whole of the source’. Students need to focus on the whole text in order to explore the development of character or events or themes and achieve Level 3 and above. | |
14
15
Language Paper 1: Question 4 Model (17 marks) | |
I agree with this students state ment because the Tyrannosaurus Rex is described by the writer as similar to that of not just a monster but a “great evil god” emphasing great power because of the power that gods possess. The method of using the word “god” can be used to convey an idea of losing faith in your religion by automatically associating this creature as a god it replaces how the charactures would feel about thier god in their religion because the fact that they are seeing this creature makes them believe that they are unprotected by god as god cannot save them from this terror. In Eckel’s reaction he seems to reach a conclusion immediately that “it can’t be killed” conveying to the reader that Eckels is seeing something so terrifying that he could not put It into words, However before he saw the creature Eckel’s seemed to be boasting about all the creatures he had killed “I’ve hunted tiger, wild boar, buffalo, elephants” leading to my own impression of Eckels reaction as; that this is a man, a great hunter, who is not afraid of anything, is genuinely terrified of this creature and for once in his life is scared for his life emphasising how he would not be very easily frightened but his reaction to the T-rex just shows us how unworldly and frightening the T-rex is / was. The tyrannosaurus rex is described as “The tyrant lizard” emphasing the word tyrant which is often described as someone similar to an emperor who will conquer great lands as if they were tiny and worthless and who will stop at nothing to expand his kingdom even if that means killing inocence. this by itself just shows the raw power that is held by the t-rex and is no doubt a terror for any man would be squashed so easily like an ant by the great Creature so leading me to believe that Eckels is right to be terrified of the T rex and his reaction was the right one to have. Examiner Comments: Ambitious approach; perceptive evaluation of ideas and perceptive evaluation of writer's methods. NB Students come to the second half of the source having read the first half, and the question requires them to 'focus' on the given lines. There is a difference between a student who mistakenly focuses on the incorrect lines, or a student who deliberately focuses on the incorrect lines because they don't understand what is happening in the given lines, and one who uses an idea/phrase from the first half of the source in order to explore and evaluate an idea/phrase in the second half. This is an able student who, at the start of the response, is doing the latter. | |
16
Language Paper 1: Question 4 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
The key skill for Question 4 is evaluation, both of the ideas in the source in relation to the given statement, and also of the methods used by the writer to convey these ideas. The question was generally answered well across the ability range. The given statement was ‘This part of the story, where the men encounter the Tyrannosaurus Rex, shows Eckels is right to panic. The Monster is terrifying!’ and as with previous questions, the bullet points – suggesting students consider their own impressions of Eckels’ reaction to the T-Rex, evaluate how the writer describes the Monster, and support their response with references to the text – guided students on the focus of their evaluation. As always, there were no right or wrong answers. Some students thought Eckels was right to panic whilst others thought the opposite. Most did agree with ‘The Monster was terrifying!’ part of the statement, and many students produced their evaluation of methods in relation to this, most noticeably focusing on the writer’s use of language and structure to create an increasingly gruesome effect. Typically, Level 1 students were able to say that Eckels panicked at the sight of the T-Rex because anybody in that situation would. Level 2 students attempted to evaluate by recognising that Eckels regretted going on the safari when he saw the T-Rex, but they were unable to clarify their reasoning to explain why. Some students achieved Level 3 by linking together the idea that the reader already knew that Eckels was an experienced hunter with someone of his calibre then panicking so badly, thus leading the reader to believe that the T-Rex must have been truly terrifying. Another typical Level 3 evaluation was in relation to the creature having a ‘stink of raw flesh’, suggesting it had clearly killed before and could kill again, and therefore Eckels had every right to panic. Able students evaluated the concept of fight or flight, and recognised that Eckels’ flight instinct had come to the fore because he had now seen the T-Rex in real life and was clearly not a match for it. Others evaluated the idea that Eckels was not right to panic as, ironically, it was this reaction that made the whole group more vulnerable and put them all in danger. Some students adopted the approach of placing themselves in the action of the text, which was unhelpful. They substituted themselves for the character of Eckels and wrote about what they would do if they encountered a T-Rex. If students do this and their evaluation is rooted in the text, then it is obviously relevant, for example, explaining that they would not have run away like Eckels did because that was just being | |
17
Language Paper 1: Question 4 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
reckless and caused the T-Rex to pay even more attention to the hunters. However, saying that they would not have run away and instead they would have hidden behind the machine and then ambushed the T-Rex when it went past was not appropriate. This approach does not evaluate the ideas or the methods in the text, and therefore the focus of the question is not being addressed. It is worth reinforcing that although all evaluations and interpretations can be valid, they must be rooted in the text. | |
18
19
Language Paper 1: Question 5 Model (24+16 marks) | |
It's always the same. As the slow, continuous drone of the dirty engine rumbled below the passengers of the number seven bus, the overwhelming world flew past them (just as it did every day). Although the sun had escaped from the sky many hours ago, the city that peeked through the many windows was as bright as ever. Brighteness. A sign of optimism and hope – but not today. Not ever. Not on this bus. As the vehicle crawled by, the blinding curse of neon lights and billboards pierced through the eyes of every lifeless passanger. Distant cries for help could be heard from police cars, and conversations of passers by drifted through a small gap where one derelict window would no longer shut. Why did things have to be this way? Outside of the bus lived a cruel, relentless creature: The city. It was a monster. Nothing more. Cars growled furiously on their way past, and tall, soulless structures had risen from the ground like sharp teeth. Some people (the fools) were smiling. It was almost depressing. They had been tricked. Tricked into believing that this was a safe, calm place. They were wrong – all they had to do was look. Inside of the cold, metal bus, was a true representation of city life. Sat uncomfortably on the offensively coloured seats were people… But they weren’t people, oh no. They were dead. Lifeless. Half of these unusual beings had their eyes closed, and half were fighting desperately to keep them open. Maybe it was for the best. However, their closed eyelids did not stop the damp, sickening smell of the creature outside from visiting their nostrils, unwelcomed. How could such a common part of our miserable lives be so unpleasant? | |
20
Language Paper 1: Question 5 Model (24+16 marks) | |
Just past an old, derelict building, the creature had developed a new structure: A skyscraper. This particular skyscraper certainly lived up to its name, agressively scraping away what was once a peaceful sky, and replacing it with its ugly presence. On the base of this structure sat countless advertising boards, forcing unwanted brands into the dead faces of those who passed. Buy this! It will make you happy! Isn’t that what you want right now? They were right. People did want to be happy. But the monstorous black shadow that blanketed the bus from the structure had the opposite effect. Moisture ran slowly down each window of the bus like salty tears. At the front of the vehicle, a single headlight was cracked. Quietly, the dark headlight sat, surrounded by other bright, dazzling lights, as if it were as lonely as those who sat in the bus. In the distance, an unusual colour could be seen: Green. It was a hill, belonging to the lush countryside that awaited the passangers at the end of their seemingly neverending journey. There it was. Hope. It was there all along. | |
21
Language Paper 1: Question 5 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
Both Writing questions proved to be accessible to students, and neither option was more popular than the other this series. Those who chose the narrative suggested by the picture of Grand Central Station wrote about time travelling to both the past and the future. Quite a few students travelled through time by train, which was an obvious mode of transport given the picture, whilst others opted for a more traditional time machine. Some travelled back in time for specific personal reasons: to reconnect with lost loved ones and friends or to relive important occasions such as attending a prom or a birthday celebration. Others went back to specific times in history such as the Napoleonic wars, Renaissance Italy or the trenches of WW1. Some of the futuristic stories contained very clever ideas, for example, a time travelling detective, whose job was to pre-empt major terrorist threats by dashing back and forth through time, explaining mankind was not aware of the war with Russia because the assassination of Putin had been averted next Thursday. Many of the narratives included elements of description – the beams of light, the decorative windows, etc – again suggested by the picture, which effectively created an atmospheric backdrop to the narrative plot. The second option of imagining life in 200 years’ time also allowed students to explore and imagine in a creative way. There were many futuristic scenarios of flying cars, memory implants, virtual teachers, robots and technology taking over the world. Sometimes students placed themselves in the future and sometimes they imagined different aspects of a futuristic society in a more detached way. There were some very bleak prophesies: many post-apocalyptic descriptions depicting the end of mankind as we know it, and those who took present society as their starting point and described what life will be like if we continue to make such bad decisions had a ready-made structure to follow. The quality of responses ranged mostly across Level 2 and Level 3, with very few students in Level 1, although a significant minority did achieve Level 4. Students are beginning to understand the need to plan their writing, meaning fewer responses were unnecessarily lengthy. There were also fewer formulaic descriptions this series, possibly due to the nature of the descriptive option, although some students still managed to include a contrived use of senses, describing what they could see, hear and smell the minute they arrived in a different time zone. Some of the less able students forgot to describe and listed what they thought the future would be like, but most engaged with the topic in an interesting and | |
22
Language Paper 1: Question 5 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
quite fresh way across both questions. In terms of AO6, schools and colleges continue to emphasise the importance of varying sentence forms and encourage students to use a variety of punctuation. This is evidenced by the forms of punctuation listed by students before they start to write, and those who can employ these aspects accurately and, more importantly, seamlessly, continue to be the ones who are the most successful. Although comma splicing, punctuation of dialogue and the use of apostrophes continue to be matters of concern, the technical writing skills of the majority of students did not hamper meaning. The best responses were written with fluency and used sentence construction and punctuation for impact. | |
23
Language Paper 2
November 2018 Past paper
24
25
26
27
28
29
Question 1
30
31
32
Language Paper 2: Question 2 Model (8 marks) | |
Both sources are written in very different eras yet both writers have similar opinions on the behaviour of the drivers. Source A describes the drivers as people who play a game with his life. The metaphore ‘a very real roll of the dice’ shows that the drivers behave in a very care-free manner and don’t consider their 'appalingly common’ actions. This implies that the drivers view the cyclists as insignificant and so take very little care in looking out for cyclists. Similllarly, the writer in Source B describes the behaviour of the drivers as care free by using emotive language ‘suddenly and loudly to shout ‘Hi’ which puts an emphasis on the sock that they bring to the cyclist. This shows how inconsiderate the drivers are and don’t take into account any appropriate behaviour. This use of emotive language could also enhance the care free attitude of the drivers as the drivers in source B are driving carriages and as a result are also alarming the horses when they demonstrate such outrageous behaviour and therefore source A and source B are both alarming the cyclists with their carefree attitude. Also Source B suggest that the driver enjoy ‘inflicting torture on a fellow - creature’ as this suggest that the drivers behave in such a way that alarming cyclists is almost a sport to them and it fills the drivers with adrenaline that it forces them to feel the urge to ‘torture’ the cyclists again. Source A also suggests that the drivers behaviour could be from adrenaline. ‘However much of a rush you think you’re in’ suggests that the drivers, like in source B are full of adrenaline and as a result this results in dangerous and fatal behaviour as like in source B the drivers cannot controll their emotions. Examiner Comments: Perceptive summary: perceptive similarities and perceptive inferences from both texts with judicious use of textual detail. | |
33
Language Paper 2: Question 2 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
This was the first live series where students were asked to explore similarities rather than differences in the two texts. This does not appear to have presented significant issues, and the majority coped extremely well with the demands of this question, including a range of both similarities and differences in their response. Students either adapted intuitively to the change of focus from differences to similarities, or they had been well-prepared by centres to address both possibilities. Within the framework offered by the Assessment Objective, students are expected to ‘synthesise evidence’ (which includes information, ideas and textual detail); this allows the selection and interpretation of similarities or differences to be equally valid. Although the focus of the question was on similarities, comments on differences were also rewarded by examiners where they were appropriate to the focus of the question. Many students were able to identify the similarities in the attitudes of modern drivers and the Victorian hansom cab drivers, both showing a reprehensible indifference to the safety of others on the roads. They selected textual detail to support their points, often citing how the drivers passed very close to the cyclists without worrying about the consequences. Clear similarities were identified with the suggestion that their actions gave both sets of drivers a sense of triumph, and the best students were able to move beyond the similarity to explain the more subtle and perceptive difference between the aggressive but rational behaviour of the modern drivers in contrast to the sadistic pleasure and psychotic actions of the cabmen for a mark in Level 4. The focus of the question was the behaviour of the drivers in the two texts, and there was a range of material to infer from. Students frequently commented on the violence and thoughtlessness of the drivers, and their lack of concern for the safety of others. Even the weakest students were able to infer that the drivers were careless and the most able were inclined to comment on the deliberate or conscious acts of aggression; the extent of the risks drivers were willing to take; the gamble with others’ lives which this implied and what motivated the drivers to behave in that way. It was the inclusion of these layers of interpretation – to explain how or why they behaved in particular ways – which allowed students to access the higher levels | |
34
Language Paper 2: Question 2 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
by offering a perceptive or conceptual understanding of the drivers’ behaviour. Less able students tended to mistake the focus of the task and concentrated instead on the experience of the cyclists, failing to address the behaviour of the drivers. Whilst the drivers’ and the cyclists’ experiences are clearly linked, some students were able to bring their comments back to the actions of the drivers, even when they had set off writing about the cyclists, and were rewarded accordingly. Other students struggled to interpret the evidence they had selected and comment on what they understood about the behaviour of the drivers, and thereby failed to make it into Level 2. In summary
| |
35
36
Language Paper 2: Question 3 Model (11 marks) | |
Within this extract, the writer uses mainly negative language to describe her cycling experiences. The phrase “try my fate in traffic” is used to convey how dangerous cycling can be. The word “fate” emphasises the risk and suggests it can be a matter of life or death to cycle. This helps the reader comprehend and understand the fear the countess is facing. Next, the simile “nervous as a hare... greyhound’s breath” is used to portray the writer’s bad experiences with cycling. The writer feels such genuine fear and terror that it is similar to being hunted alive by a dangerous prey. The word “nervous” emphasises the negative connotations and anxiety the writer feels towards cycling. This makes the reader feel pity for her, having to experience such a traumatic event. Finally, the writer uses the metaphor “stormy oceans of Sloane Street” to describe her cycling experiences. The weather imagery of “stormy oceans” implies that the streets are incredibly dangerous and a never-ending threat. The word “stormy” is a violent adjective used to convey how the roads are brutal and controlling a frightening experience for the writer. The noun “oceans” suggests that the roads are wild and uncontrollable. The writer feels submerged and trapped within them, making her cycling ordeal seem even more terrifying. Finally, it suggests that the writer is out of her depths and unsafe being on the road, since like oceans, they can be a genuine threat to life. Examiner Comments: Perceptive analysis of language in the final paragraph. | |
37
Language Paper 2: Question 3 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
Question 3 posed a question about the language used to describe the writer’s first experience of riding a bicycle in the streets of London. The given lines were taken from the 19th century text, but this did not present any apparent problems for students, who rose to the challenge of a text written 120 years ago with confidence and some significant success. Schools and colleges are clearly preparing students by familiarising them with a range of texts from different time periods, and the evidence is that this preparation in readiness for Question 3 in particular is proving effective. The mean mark for Question 3 was very similar to November 2017 at just over 4 marks, suggesting most students were able to make some attempt to engage with the effect of language. Commenting on effect is the key skill for Question 3 and remains the overwhelmingly important focus for students in their response to language and should remain the focus for schools and colleges preparing students for this exam. The lines selected from Source B related to the writer’s first experience of riding her bike. They provided a range of different language techniques as well as some interesting words and phrases. There were metaphors and similes, alliteration and hyperbole, listing and the use of abstract nouns. Students tended to make very similar selections of language examples, with the image of the greyhound and the hare one of the most popular choices. Students had various degrees of success in explaining how the image showed the writer’s anxiety, with only a few able to clearly identify the comparison between the writer’s feelings of fear as she rode her bike chased by the hansom cabs and the fear felt by a hare when chased by a greyhound, with her sense of their approach being compared to the hare feeling the greyhound’s breath. The metaphor of the ‘stormy oceans of Sloane Street’ was also a favourite. Some students mistook this image as a literal description of the weather, which made it very difficult to comment clearly on the effect of the metaphor. However, other students were able to explore how this metaphor offered a comparison of the chaos and danger of the streets of London in relation to the unpredictability and mayhem of the sea in stormy weather. | |
38
Language Paper 2: Question 3 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
It is the ability to contextualise the image and, crucially, to bring together both parts of the image and relate them back to the text which is rewarded by marks in Level 3 and above. Students often need to write in more depth about a particular image, returning to the central comparison in a metaphor or simile and explicitly linking it to what is happening in the text, in order to move intoLevel 3. There were examples of students whose perseverance finally paid off by attempting several times to explain how an image worked, and moving from Level 2 to Level 3 by eventually becoming ‘clear’ in explaining the image thoroughly. Students struggled where they made poor choices, and those who selected ‘streaming’ and ‘exhausted’ as examples of adjectives were often left with little to comment on other than the meanings of the words. The phrase ‘conquer their nervousness’ was selected by very few, but would have made fertile ground for comment on the battle imagery used. Likewise, the alliteration in ‘stormy oceans of Sloane Street’ was largely ignored by students, although there were opportunities to explore the sound effects of the wheels swooshing along the street. A few students misinterpreted the word ‘launched’, suggesting that the way she threw her bike into the street indicated how frustrated she felt with cycling. The choice of language examples is the key to success in Question 3, and for the most part students made sensible and helpful choices. In summary
| |
39
40
Language Paper 2: Question 4 Model ( 14 marks) | |
In source A and source B, it can be inferred that drivers enjoy the danger and chaos they cause to cyclists. Source A uses adverb ‘gambling’ and repeats this idea in the metaphor ‘roll of the dice’ to show that not only are they taking a chance on people’s lives but enjoy the thrill of it, however, it is always a losing game as overtaking the cyclist ‘had all been for nothing’ as it just puts the cyclists in danger. This shows the reader the huge risk the drivers are playing for the little reward, so the reader understands the frustration of the cyclists. This idea is repeated in source B, where the opening starts with a short sentence that describes the cab drivers monstrous activities as a ‘new sport’, showing the fun and enjoyment the drivers seem to receive from putting the cyclist through a stressful situations for a game of cat and mouse, with the defenceless cyclist being the ‘prey’. This short, simple sentence increases the tension and gets the reader’s full focus to the barbaric minds of the ‘drivers of hansome cabs; and the sarcasm that it isn’t fun at all for the cyclist. The stress of the cyclists is shown vividly in source B using the metaphor ‘buring my fate into the traffic’ contrasted with the similie ‘as nervous as a hare that feels the greyhound’s breath’. Buring is a powerful adverb that suggests the cyclist is making a bold influence on the traffic, or perhaps could suggest that there is no changing her fate as it is already burnt onto the pavement. The fact that she is nervous could be a foreshadowing to the events that would occur and how she is paralised to stop them, as her life is in the drivers hands. Although not as vivid and descriptive, the writer in source A still shows the mental stress cyclists are open to, as they are described as, ‘vulnerable’ and road users are metaphorically ‘cocooned within a ton of metal’ to show how because they're protected, they are more likely to make risks and have a catagoric effect on people. The writer helps back this up by using the statistics of the damage that can be caused by a driver at 120mph compared to 30mph, and tries to place the responsibility back on the drivers to show their affect on cyclers in the city. Examiner Comment: A little uneven but in places demonstrates perceptive understanding of ideas and perspectives with analysis of methods and a range of judicious supporting detail. | |
41
Language Paper 2: Question 4 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
One of the most obvious observations about responses to Question 4 was how short they were. Many students wrote less than two sides of the answer booklet, which was often less than they had written in response to Question 2. As the mark tariff for Question 4 is double that for Question 2, it is worth reminding students that they should be writing relatively more for Question 4 in order to have a better chance of achieving more marks. However, a significant minority of students did not attempt Question 4 at all. Although there are clearly significant challenges for students in addressing all the key skills at the higher levels, even a very simple response which identifies the basic ideas in the texts about cycling being dangerous and an awareness that both writers thought the same thing, with perhaps a quotation or two, would go some way towards achieving 4 marks. It is always worth a try, and students should perhaps be reminded that even when time is short, and the question appears complex, a simple understanding of ideas and a basic comparison of the writers’ views are always rewarded by marks. Students who did attempt the question were often able to comment on the similarities between the two writers’ perspectives on cycling in the city, helped perhaps by the very close correlation between the two texts. The focus again was on similarities, for the first time on Question 4 in a live series, and again it did not appear to distract or confuse students in the slightest. They identified how both writers complained about the behaviour of other road users and were appalled by the risks they had to take. Some students developed their response by exploring differences in their attitudes too, in that the writer of Source A took it very seriously, whilst the writer in Source B seemed to make light of her experiences. Students progressed naturally from an identification of the writers’ similar perspectives to explore the different methods the writers used to present their points of view. So it was common to read that whilst both writers felt that cycling was very dangerous, the writer in Source A used facts and statistics to support his argument, whereas the writer in Source B used emotive language and vivid imagery to illustrate the same thing, with different effects. There were a reassuring number of students commenting on methods, a central expectation of this task and one of the key skills, and doing so with some confidence and success. | |
42
Language Paper 2: Question 4 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
Where students struggled, they often failed to focus on the cyclists, and in a reversal of the issue with Question 2, wrote about the drivers rather than the cyclists. Clearly the two are intertwined in both sources, but for the students’ comments and understanding to be judged ‘clear’ and rewarded in Level 3, they need to relate directly, not indirectly, to the focus of the question. It is possible that some students were simply repeating the same comments they had already made in Question 2 in their response to Question 4. It cannot be said too frequently that the focus of these two tasks will always be different and discrete, and it serves students very badly to repeat the content of their Question 2 response in a later question, no matter how tempting it might appear to do so. The focus and the key skills are very different and they will not benefit in any way from this strategy. In summary
| |
43
44
Language Paper 2: Question 5 Model (20+11 marks) | |
Killing Machienes! Dear Minister of Transport, I pleed for not only the mercy of our citizens, but for the mercy of our planet. Millions and millions of cars in our city centres are destroying not only our livleyhood, but our environment. My little siblings are coming home each day with blackened faces, tinted from the dirty smog that oozes so unhealthily out of those tin cans that patrol our streets. The walls of our once opal and silver architecture is now covered with a dull brown stain of depression and failiure. I write to you here today not only speaking for myself but also for the public. The daily commuters on foot who have to put up with the endless racket and drone of cars killing everything it sees with its horrible blast of noise and disgusting blow of fumes. They must be banned today! Take a minute and think about your child. How would you feel knowing that they can’t walk safely in their own city without their lungs being stuffed constantly with bacteria and smog. Remove cars from these city areas and you will literally be restoring peace to the community! Clearer air, peaceful sounds, and healthier people. The lack of cars will free the roads up for cyclists, this will lead to drops in obesity as people will be exercising more often. It will also lead to a complete irradication of road accidents, saving tax payers millions over the coming years. Dare I even mention the slash of police time that would be saved? No more speeding, no more driving in bus lanes, and best of all no more drink drivers. This will force the yearly death numbers to plummet into the ground leaving our community safer, happier and healthier. So I ask you today, fulfil your responsibility at making our transport system safer, and you can be the person that saves our society not only money, but their lives! Yours sincerely, Examiner Comments: Content and Organisation (AO5) Convincing communcation; tone convincingly matched to purpose and audience; elements of conscious crafting. Technical Accuracy (AO6) Uses sentence forms for effect and demarcation mostly secure and mostly accurate, but spelling and control of agreement not consistent. | |
45
Language Paper 2: Question 5 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
The task was intended to invite students to explore issues around the theme of transport, linking directly to the theme of the reading sources. The letter form was picked up by almost all students, and there were varying degrees of formality in the layout of the addresses, dates and salutations. Whilst there was no particular requirement for the layout to be presented in a specific way, it gave students the opportunity to demonstrate some structural features and to establish an appropriate register for the relatively formal audience of the Minister for Transport as they began writing. With the exception of the few students who misread the statement and wrote instead about banning cats in city centres, the vast majority of students appeared to find this an accessible and engaging task. There were a roughly equal number of students agreeing and disagreeing with the statement, either of which is a totally acceptable response to Question 5. There were arguments presented regarding the importance of public health and safety, a discussion of the benefits of public transport and some inspiring proposals for converting car park space in town centres once cars are banned. On the other hand, students argued forcefully that it would be inconceivable to ban the most useful invention that humanity had ever conceived, that it was inherently unfair to the elderly and the disabled, and that it was inadvisable for the Minister to alienate large swathes of the population by such autocratic decisions as banning cars. Where students performed well on Content and Organisation, they produced coherent arguments either for or against the statement. They presented a single clear point of view, supported by a series of relevant and sequenced points, incorporating a variety of vocabulary and engaging the reader with a range of more or less successful linguistic devices. These letters were judged ‘clear’ in terms of their overall communication of their argument and were rewarded with marks in Level 3. Where students were awarded marks in Level 2, this was in recognition that their central argument was unclear or muddled, often switching from one side of the argument to the other. Students who mishandled the inclusion of a counter-argument fell into this category as they often sabotaged the clarity of their own argument by flipping between sides and thus risked leaving the reader confused. Students who performed at Level 2 were often unable to vary their vocabulary | |
46
Language Paper 2: Question 5 WHAT DID THE EXAMINER SAY? | |
and raise it to a more sophisticated level; they frequently used linguistic devices which were inappropriate for the context, although there is little evidence of this as an obstacle to achieving higher marks. In terms of Technical Accuracy, there were some promising signs regarding punctuation which appeared to be wider in range and more precisely employed than in previous series. There was some pleasing evidence of sentence forms being more varied and being used to create effects, both of which will help the student to move from Level 2 to Level 3. There is a huge tariff of marks available for Technical Accuracy, which should mean that schools and colleges continue to invest time and effort in increasing students’ technical skills, even at this relatively late stage of their English Language education. The mean marks for both Content and Organisation and Technical Accuracy (AO5 and AO6) rose slightly in this November series and fell just beneath the boundary between Level 2 and Level 3, suggesting improvements are still being made by both centres and students in writing skills. In summary
| |
Task: Your local newspaper has published an article called ‘Is it really more expensive to eat healthy food’. Write a letter to the newspaper giving your views.
47
Story opener- who are you going to focus on? How will you build sympathy?
First reason why- what will your first argument be?
My solution- what would you suggest to fix this problem?
Counterargument- how will acknowledge the opposite opinion and then shut it down?
Call to action- what do you want your readers to go away and do after reading?
One-liner- how will you end? Return to the story opener? Leave readers with one final thought?