Reflections on Eduqas GCSE English November 2018-Component 1 reading

During the spring term we ran free network meetings in twenty locations across England.  At these meetings we discussed the GCSE English Language November 2018 papers and looked at some of the candidate exemplars on the Eduqas Online Exam Review site.  In this blog I will summarise the main points which arose for Component 1 reading.

(The papers and marking guidelines may be found on the secure website.  Teachers in registered Eduqas schools and colleges may get login details from their exams officer.)

The extract was from John Steinbeck’s East of Eden.  The narrator reflects on the lives and characters of Samuel and Liza Hamilton, who emigrated from Ireland to the United States in the nineteenth century.  Samuel and Liza are very different people: he is sociable, practical, and “a laughing man”, whereas she is strict, rather inflexible, and “suspicious of fun”.  Although written somewhat earlier than other recent Component 1 texts, it is representative in that it explores character at different levels: while there is a lot of surface detail for candidates to explore, there are also a number of inferences to be made.  This allows for differentiation. In practice, the paper worked well and gave candidates plenty of opportunities to show what they could do.

The level of demand of an exam is measured by the facility factor (the mean mark as a percentage of the available mark); the higher the facility factor for a question, the more accessible the candidates found it.   Here our analysis showed that each question was more challenging than the one before.  It must be borne in mind that the nature of the entry in November (made up overwhelmingly of resit candidates trying for a grade 4 or 5) means that overall outcomes are inevitably somewhat lower than we would expect in the summer.   However, the overall pattern of increasing challenge as candidates answer the reading questions is one we aim for in summer and winter.  

Question 1: List five things you learn about the Hamiltons in these lines.

As usual, the first question was a straightforward “search and find” task.  A bullet-pointed list is recommended, and it is perhaps a good idea to list one or two more than five in case a couple are wrong.  Most candidates did very well on this question – the FF was 83.7 – but some just focused on Samuel, which inevitably limited achievement.  It’s important to emphasise two things to candidates here: although this is designed to be a very accessible low mark question, it does require careful reading (both of the question and the text!) and selection, and it’s worthwhile treating it with respect, as although there aren’t many marks allocated to it, in the end one or two marks can make all the difference.  On the other hand, candidates shouldn’t spend too long on it either: there’s a lot to do on this paper, and it’s important to attempt all questions.  We recommend around a minute per mark – so five minutes or so on this first question seems sensible.      

At the meetings I looked particularly at exemplar 3 on the OER site.  This is an excellent answer which gained full marks.  However, the candidate might have saved time by answering in list form rather than in full sentences.

Question 2: What impressions does the writer create of Samuel and Liza in these lines?

As intended, this was a slightly more challenging question (FF 62.7) but overall candidates coped with it well.  Even though the amount of reading was relatively small, there was a lot of material for candidates to use.  What was required was a range of points, and ensuring that they read the question carefully, in particular considering both Samuel and Liza.  Only looking at one limited achievement.

OER exemplar 3 is a useful one to look at.  The candidate adopts a methodical approach which works well.  There is a short introductory sentence which refers back to the question (always a good idea as it helps to ensure an accurate focus from the start) and gives a useful, brief summary.  She then looks at Samuel and Liza in turn, with a brief conclusion.  The effective use of paragraphs makes things very clear for the examiner.   This methodical approach is reflected in the content of the response too: she makes a point – for example, “Samuel is in a sense a perfect man”, then she gives some evidence – “the writer describes [him] as ‘honest’, having ‘good looks and charm’ and being ‘full of energy and invention’ “,  and then she explains / analyses this evidence – “the word ‘honest’ means that he is truthful … “.  Two other things stand out: she makes a range of points drawing on evidence from across the specified lines, and she selects and integrates quotations, showing an understanding of the text.  Unsurprisingly, this response was awarded full marks.   It’s a useful one to use in the classroom I think as it does everything required to get to the top of the top band but will not daunt or demoralise students not yet achieving at that level.   

Question 3: What sort of man is Samuel Hamilton?  How does the writer show what sort of man Samuel Hamilton is?

The facility factor was 40.9 for this question, the first ten-marker.  Whilst some candidates did well, too many over-complicated the “how” aspect, getting hung up on the spotting of technical features, often identified wrongly.  It’s worth repeating that subject terminology can be as simple as “word” or “sentence” and that its use should always be a means to an end rather than an end in itself.  Candidates get no credit for simply identifying features, and doing so can waste time and, if done incorrectly, it can actually make the answer as a whole more confusing.  Far better is to adopt the approach used in the exemplar we looked at for question 2: make a point, and then give some evidence from the text to support it, with relevant subject terminology embedded where appropriate.  It’s also important to remember that what happens in a text is an important way for the writer to tell us things, alongside the language he or she chooses to use. 

It’s also vital that candidates range across the whole of the specified lines. If they track through from beginning to end, identifying appropriate points as they go, it will help ensure that the answer is both coherent and thorough.  There is a lot for them to get their teeth into.  Candidates don’t have to mention everything listed in the mark scheme, but a range of points is a key differentiator.  However, in questions like this success is also a matter of quality, not quantity.

In the meetings we looked particularly at OER exemplar 1, as it has strengths – it makes a number of points supported by appropriate evidence – but also has a number of shortcomings.  In particular, coverage is somewhat uneven and some of the conclusions reached could have been more precise.  It is also a good example of an unhelpful use of subject terminology.  The candidate uses terminology but invariably incorrectly, and it adds nothing to the quality of the answer, and the answer would have achieved its mark (5) without it.  This might be a useful exemplar to discuss with students of differing abilities: with some, there could be a discussion of ways in which the answer could be improved (more selective quotation, more precise discussion, greater range, for example) but it could also be used to encourage others by showing how a fairly modest response may achieve a respectable mark.

Question 4: How does the writer present the character of Liza Hamilton in these lines?

Candidates found this a slightly more challenging question (FF 35.9).  This was because, I think, that Steinbeck’s tone is sharply ironic when telling us about Liza.  To achieve the highest marks it was necessary to read between the lines a little.  That said, there were of course a number of surface features to pick up on, and many did so.  Some used these to “prove” that Lisa was “evil” whereas in fact the picture presented was a little more nuanced than that.  Some too misunderstood the word “convictions”, believing that Lisa’s having them meant she had been in prison – a rather unlikely conclusion in her case.   As with question 3, a good approach was to track through the extract from beginning to end, identifying points and giving evidence for them, thus ensuring range and appropriate coverage.  Tracking also deals with “structure”, which is also covered by this question.  There is no need to address this aspect separately.  Whilst on this topic, it’s worthwhile mentioning too that sentence level analysis – looking at their length or construction or the use of punctuation marks – can be helpful if candidates say something sensible about it, but is often an unhelpful distraction.

In the meetings we focused on OER exemplar 2 for this question.  It’s a thorough and perceptive response which was awarded a mark of 8.  The opening sentence is helpful, referring back to the question and making a valid point about Liza and the contrast with her husband. Immediately we see that the candidate has understood the question and appears to be on the right lines in his response.  He goes on to identify a number of valid points and to explain them, including making a correct inference about Lisa’s hairstyle and what it says about her character.  There’s a good range and the answer is perceptive.  There is also some focus on technique.

Question 5: “The writer shows that life for immigrants such as the Hamiltons was very hard.” How far do you agree with this view?

This question required candidates to look at the text as whole.  Clearly, therefore, they had to be selective but also range over the whole piece.  Tracking was a useful approach here, to ensure appropriate coverage.   The facility factor of 25.4 reflected the challenge of the task.  Perhaps unsurprisingly there were also a significant number of candidates (around 15%) who did not attempt this question.  Whilst this is perhaps understandable, given that this was the last of the reading questions, it must be stressed that simply not attempting a ten-mark question at all means that 12.5% of the available total for the paper is lost automatically.  Careful planning of time – and sticking to it! – is vital.

The question itself – which prompted evaluation through the use of a statement and a question rather than specifically asking candidates to “evaluate” – worked well, however.  It’s worth pointing out that there is no right answer to any of the higher mark questions on the English language papers, but a sensible approach here was to agree that life for immigrants was hard – the available evidence in the text cannot suggest otherwise, I think – but then to consider whether there was anything which modifies that view (a sense of community, self-reliance perhaps).  It was also important to remember that the question refers to all immigrants referred to in the extract, not just the Hamiltons.

We looked at OER exemplar 2.  This starts with a statement that leads into a simple but nicely constructed response.  We are first given some reasons why life was hard.  We are then given a couple of more positive points, followed by a brief conclusion.  Clearly there are shortcomings: coverage is by no means thorough, points made are fairly simple, there is more reference to the Hamiltons than immigrants in general – but its virtues gain it a mark of 5. Again, this might be a useful response to use with students aspiring to a higher mark as well as those who need reassurance that a mid-range mark is achievable for responses which are clear and relevant. 

I hope that you find these notes useful.  Next time I will have a look at Component 2.