Reflections on Summer 2018 Eduqas papers: GCSE English Language writing
Over the next few weeks we'll be reflecting on this summer’s papers by summarising some of the main points from the principal examiners' reports, starting with the GCSE English Language assessment of writing.
Write enough!
In Component Two candidates were asked to write “about 300-400 words for each task” which allowed opportunities for a range of information to be included in the first task or arguments to be developed in the second task. Those who responded with only brief pieces often struggled to develop specific detail or arguments.
Structure
Some candidates seemed to find it difficult to establish a convincing sense of direction in their Component One writing, and there was often an awkward transition from the opening of the story to what followed in the “Continue the following” task. A quick outline/plan can really help with structure here.
Similarly organising a narrative to meet a fixed conclusion (“Write a story which ends: …) requires thought and planning. Candidates need to have a clear sense of where they are going, not merely hope for the best.
In Component Two the more successful responses were organised into paragraphs, each of which raised a particular point and then developed it in sufficient detail to make a convincing argument before moving on to their next point in a subsequent paragraph.
Keep it convincing
There was something for everyone in the choice of narrative titles and all were tackled in significant numbers. The “grandma” title worked well as the responses were often anecdotal in approach and much of the writing was spontaneous and natural. Similarly the “shopping with a relative” task worked best when the writing was convincing, lively and amusing. Accounts of trips around the shops where little or nothing of any interest happened worked less well.
For the Component Two tasks well-chosen and realistic supporting details always improved responses.
What’s it for?
In Component Two in particular, a clear view of the purpose of each writing task was required. For example, in the first task it made sense to include details about location or something about the history of the attraction alongside practical recommendations about what to do on arrival and information about such things as parking. A small number of candidates chose to interpret the task as a kind of advertisement rather than an article for a travel magazine, and at times these pieces drifted into more of a 'hard sell' promotion which wasn’t really appropriate.
Who’s it for?
An understanding of the intended audience is vital for any writing, but particularly in responses to the transactional tasks set on Component Two. For the first task, good responses often gave a level of specific detail about particular attractions that would be appreciated by the intended readers, whilst weaker responses tended to write in much more general terms, telling readers that there were lots of things to do but with only vague or limited details of the actual attractions that could be enjoyed such as good shopping facilities, museums or leisure centres. Better responses were always aware the article should show that the attraction was a place to be enjoyed by the intended audience: different members of the family. Those who wrote just about the hair-raising rides in Alton Towers or at Blackpool Pleasure Beach, without considering what younger children or older members of the family might find interesting to do limited the impact of their work.
In the second task on Component Two, establishing the correct audience for the letter was a little problematic for some, particularly where some candidates seemed to think the newspaper editor would be the person deciding whether to press ahead with the suggested changes.
What’s the context?
As the second task on Component Two was a formal letter, some awareness of format was helpful as was some clarity about what was being suggested. It was also important that writing here did not stray too far into informality.
Read the question!
On Component One it was really pleasing to see that the message about avoiding the “here’s one I learnt earlier” approach had obviously got through. However, some stories were still contrived and thus unconvincing and there were still a minority of responses which seemed to have little to do with any of the given titles.
On Component Two it was particularly important to read the task details carefully as they provided useful detail to inform the candidates’ responses.
Technical accuracy
As always, most candidates need to take more care with the basics of spelling, punctuation and grammar. Weakness in technical accuracy undermined a lot of responses, and many candidates were rewarded in a higher band for communication and organisation than they were for technical accuracy. There were many simple, entirely avoidable errors, for example spelling 'fares' (given in the task details) as 'fairs', and making basic errors in punctuation and sentence construction. These weaknesses unfortunately continue to undermine too many responses, and the weighting on this aspect of writing makes it very important indeed.
