Reflections on Summer 2018 Eduqas papers: GCSE English Language reading

We’re reflecting on this summer’s papers by summarising some of the main points from the principal examiners' reports. This time it’s the turn of the GCSE English Language assessment of reading.

The Component 1 text was taken from a novel by Margaret Atwood while the material for Component Two concerned itself with volcanoes: a newspaper article dealing with a volcano erupting in Iceland that quickly became a tourist attraction and a first-hand account of the Krakatoa volcano eruption in 1883.

For some questions, a list is fine…

As usual, the opening question on Component 1 was only worth five marks. There were opportunities here for some inference but the marks could be picked up by a careful selection of surface material. If this was presented in a list form, candidates saved time and also made it clear what they were selecting.

Take note of the number of marks

Clearly candidates should be writing less, and thus spending less time, when answering questions worth fewer marks. For example, given the modest weighting of question 0.2 on Component One, the sensible majority of candidates dealt with it concisely and with minimum fuss.

Write about the “what” and the “how”

To do well on question 0.3 in Component One, candidates needed to write about how Atwood shows Emma’s character. This is partly to do with what she tells us, and partly about how she uses language to do it. Understanding of the character of Emma was clearly essential to a good response to this question but the better answers kept the focus on the writer and the issue of ‘how’ she revealed Emma’s personality.

But make sure comments about technique are focused and meaningful

However, the weaker responses to this question made unconvincing assertions about the power of short or long, sentences. Similarly on Component Two, question 1.2, instead of focusing on key aspects of the content that make the article exciting and dramatic, too many candidates stated that the excitement and drama came from long sentences, or short sentences, or 'relatively short sentences' or even, 'simple complex sentences'.

Some candidates also commented that the writer’s use of commas, dashes, length of paragraphs and alliteration made for a dramatic piece of writing but all too frequently in these cases, close reading of the text was limited. Some tried to find individual words to home in on but where this was done with little or no explanation of context, it was often unclear to markers how an isolated detail or word added to the impact of the writing. Weaker responses simply noted a series of words used by the writer with little or no explanation of what their impact on the reader might be or how they reflected the drama of a situation.

Too many candidates still regard this type of question on both papers as one in which simply 'feature spotting' will earn high marks. This approach leads to candidates desperately trying to find the 'feature' they are seeking and careful exploration of the text is often a casualty.

Terminology is great - but only when it’s relevant

It is worth reminding candidates that terminology is only required ‘where appropriate’ and should not be the starting point or focus of their responses on either paper.

Track through the text

For question 0.4 on Component One, it was sensible to approach this question by ‘tracking’ the text as a way of grasping the structure of the writing. What started as an adventure, an exciting bit of fun, quickly developed into something far more serious and dramatic. The writer used the carefully-constructed sequence of events to build excitement and drama and, although it can often be difficult to comment sensibly on structure, in this instance it was relatively straightforward to see how the action developed.

Similarly, on Component Two, question 1.2, the most effective way of tackling the question was by moving methodically through the text, selecting salient details and commenting, where appropriate, about the impact of the detail.

Evaluation: less is more

Question 0.5 on Component One required careful, focused thinking and the ability to range across a whole text. The better responses established a coherent stance and then explored how the characters of Emma and Robbie developed across the story with some comment on how the writer had shown those developments. Thinking and reading carefully was key.

Some candidates did this question with impressive focus and economy but others wrote a lot and did not get very far at all. Sometimes less is more and that was often the case here.

Reading the text and the question is vital

Two questions on Component Two are straightforward “search and find” questions. However, some candidates let themselves down by not reading the question or the text carefully enough. This first question followed a now-familiar pattern of three one-mark questions that asked candidates to identify particular details from one of the texts, in this case the newspaper article. The final part of the question asked, 'How wide is the crater of Katla?' This should have presented few difficulties as the relevant part of the text read, “Beneath Katla’s five-mile-wide crater sits 250 square miles of packed ice...” However, there were too many candidates who chose '250 square miles', serving as a reminder that even these simple opening questions need a little care.

Similarly, the first part of question 1.3 simply required candidates to state on which day of the week the Krakatoa volcano erupted. The second paragraph gave the required information: “It began on the Sunday afternoon...” but a number of candidates gave the date of the eruption rather than the day, for which there was no reward.

And answer the question!

Question 1.5 on Component Two requires candidates to synthesise information from the two texts. In some cases, however, candidates simply ignored the question and gave more general information about volcanoes, writing with little reference to either text. Some wrote about just one of the texts, or only selected relevant detail from one text, severely restricting the marks that could be awarded. It also worth reminding candidates that this question is worth 4 marks and does not require a lengthy response. Candidates should take note of the helpful instruction in the wording of the question which asks them to explain briefly in your own words.

Similarly, on question 16 some took only passing notice of the details demanded by the question and, for example, chose to write about what Sandrick saw and heard of the tsunami rather than the erupting volcano. However, where candidates read both the question and each text carefully, it was possible to accumulate marks quite quickly.

Separate the detail in the two texts

In the question requiring synthesis (Component Two, question 1.5) it was sensible for candidates to be text-specific in answering this question but weaker responses struggled to separate the details in the two texts. For example, candidates who responded by saying that in both texts there were lots of deaths and houses swept away gained no reward.

And use the bullet points!

Bullet points are only ever used to support candidates. The comparison question on Component Two is challenging, of course, but the two bullet points in the question gave a clear pointer to what was required and good candidates shaped their responses accordingly. Candidates who ignored the bullet points entirely struggled to gain many marks.

Similarly, on other questions where bullet points were provided (for example, question 0.3 on Component 1) they seemed to be helpful.