The more things change … WJEC O Level English Literature in 1951
I’m taking a look at the WJEC papers and examiners’ reports from the first sitting of the O Level examination in 1951. This time it’s the turn of the English literature assessment.
The chief examiner in 1951 was Dr KM Lobb of Southampton Institute of Education, assisted by just twelve examiners, all named. Overall he notes an improvement in the presentation of answers (“including even hand-writing, spelling and grammar”) and that consequently “a high proportion of the scripts was pleasing to the eye as well as the mind”. However, there were weaknesses which will be familiar to many English teachers and examiners today: “a certain amount of work so unusually careless as to suggest that the prescribed texts had been … hardly prepared at all” and “weaknesses in punctuation and paragraphing”. “Candidates must somehow be brought to realise”, he writes, “that these devices are not merely arbitrary symbols, but have real meaning.” I’m not sure that most examiners or teachers these days would necessarily cite “the late Archbishop of Canterbury” in this context (“correct punctuation can do more to clarify a writer’s meaning than even correct spelling”) but I daresay that many would concur with the sentiment – SPAG mark or no SPAG mark.
Similarly, another issue that Dr Lobb identifies will not come as a surprise: failure to read the question. He mentions those whose “enthusiasm had run away with [them]” and then “wrote page after page in answer to a question which [they] had not really read”. The other problem is also still very much around: answering the question you wish you’d been asked, or using something you’ve prepared earlier. Then as now, some candidates “were determined at all costs to use [this answer], whether with the distressing naivety that presented the prepared matter badly or with the still more distressing cunning that sought to twist the question to fit the answer”. Dr Lobb observes that one candidate even “produced the most remarkable work of the year – an answer to a question … actually set in 1949”.
There were two syllabuses available: A and B. Each was assessed by a two and a half hour paper. On the A paper, just the first question was compulsory. It certainly looks very different to anything we do now. Candidates were required to select four from a long list of short three or four line extracts from the prescribed Shakespeare and poetry texts. They had to give a brief account of the context (i.e. within the play or poem) of each, and explain the meanings of certain italicised words and phrases. They were then required to answer one question from each of Section A, B, C and D.
Section A was Shakespeare – either Richard II or The Tempest. There was a fairly broad choice of task: either studies of key characters explaining their contribution to the development of the plot, a detailed description of a scene of the candidate’s choice including, interestingly, advice on staging, or a requirement to write out between twelve to fifteen lines spoken by Richard II or Prospero and show “what light this passage throws upon his character and his actions”. Remember this was, as now, closed book assessment! According to Dr Lobb, the speeches themselves were generally accurate (“though a minority … still refuses to write verse in lines”), presumably because candidates had anticipated a question of this sort. The commentary, however, “was often not really attempted”. Looking at the tasks as a whole, there seems to be much less explicit emphasis on Shakespeare’s use of language and dramatic technique than we would perhaps expect in an English literature paper today, but Dr Lobb does observe that the “staging” question was “designed for those candidates who are at last coming to see Shakespeare’s works as plays”.
Section B was based on the reading of a poetry anthology. Again questions are predominantly based around content:
“Summarize Goldsmith’s descriptions of the village of Auburn, first as it was, then as it is. Explain briefly what has caused the change”;
“Name five poems which describe places in the British Isles. Write a brief account of one of them and quote eight to ten lines from it”;
“Describe in some detail the happenings in Christabel which lead you to believe that the Lady Geraldine is something more than mortal”.
However, there are some which will be more familiar to GCSE teachers today: a requirement to “compare and contrast” two specified poems, or to explain appealing qualities in poems that candidates have enjoyed. Overall, though, the approach looks very different to the way poetry reading is assessed now, in particular because there was no unseen text, and no explicit requirement to consider the craft of the poet. However, the chief examiner’s observation that “candidates must learn that any quotation in itself is worthless, its value depending on the way it is used” will ring bells today.
The next section offers a choice of three non-fiction texts: a collection of essays, Tarka the Otter, and Farmer’s Glory. I had to google the last one. It’s by AG Street; “a pen picture of farming life in Southern England and Western Canada” first published in 1932 - and still in print. Here candidates could choose largely from content-based tasks, for example “If, in choosing your future career, you were considering a farmer’s life, show how a reading of Farmer’s Glory would influence your choice” or memory – “Select … five essays written during the twentieth century. Name the authors of all five and summarize one of the essays in your own words” – with only one really pointing towards any discussion of technique: “Henry Williamson tells the story of Tarka almost as though the otter had human feelings. What, in your opinion, does the author gain and what does he lose, by this narrative method?” If the questions were equally weighted, it is difficult to see how these would work in terms of comparability of demand; however, as no marks are indicated, it might be that certain, more challenging, questions, received higher reward, with an overall grading decision made by the individual examiner rather than through an awarding process.
Section D tested the reading of fiction: A Tale of Two Cities, Short Stories by Modern Writers, or Badger’s Green, “a 1930 British comedy play by RC Sheriff” (thanks, Wikipedia). Again here the questions are based largely around content. One requires the candidate to identify which story a brief extract is taken from and then recount how this point was arrived at. Apparently “many useful answers were provided” to this question.
The B paper was, according to Dr Lobb’s report, “suitable for only for comparatively few pupils of sixteen years … to whom it is … a stage in the continued study (and enjoyment) of English Literature”, suggesting that this syllabus was designed for those intending to continue the subject at Advanced Level. Certainly the approach would support this interpretation as, though the structure resembles that of the A paper, it does not seem to be based on specified set texts, but rather on what was still until relatively recently assessed as “Wider Reading”. The Shakespeare questions allow candidates to write on a play of their choice (“Write a brief account of one of Shakespeare’s heroines” for example), and the quotation location exercise is based on a wide range of texts including, according to one candidate, Pride and Predujustice, the chief examiner observes.
An unseen poem exercise is available as an alternative: Milton’s On His Blindness. However, the first two questions on it are very different to those found in today’s GCSE: “Give clearly, in your own words, the meaning of lines 7 to 14 inclusive” and “Give the metrical form of any one line. What is the verse-form of the whole poem?” Only the third really touches on the linking of content and form required now, and even here the emphasis is very much on the technical features as a starting point: “Show how the poetic form, diction and devices of style clarify and emphasize the main thought.”
The other questions, from which candidates had to choose three, are not on specific texts either, but instead are largely generic, allowing them to draw on whatever they had read. Amongst these is an essay on “Wales in English Literature” or this task: “’The essay is highly personal.’ Consider this statement with reference to at least four essays by different authors.”
However, although there was little prescription in terms of texts, the assessment was still largely of content and, in some cases, memory: “Name, with their authors, four great English elegies. Give some account of one of them and quote eight to ten lines from it” or ”Name four authors who are especially well known as writers of short stories. Choose one short story by one of the four writers: summarize it briefly and show what qualities in it have appealed to you.” One question in particular will seem particularly alien to teachers today fighting the good fight against “feature-spotting”:
“The following terms are commonly used in literary criticism: hyperbole; iambic pentameter; the Spenserian Stanza; metaphor; the epic simile; irony; sub-plot; didactic poetry; personification. Select four of these terms, say what they mean, and refer to examples of all four.”
One thing that contradicted my preconceptions is that a number of the set texts for the A syllabus were by authors still living at that time (although, less surprisingly, outside the anthologies none were by women). Similarly, on this paper there is a question on the “following living poets: TS Eliot; WH Auden; Cecil Day Lewis; Stephen Spender; Vernon Watkins”. However, I doubt that the instruction to “say what you know about the work of one of [them]” provides the clarity to candidates demanded by our Question Paper Evaluation Committee today. Indeed, the chief examiner notes that “almost every … question produced good answers except [this one]”.
Perhaps it’s because I’m a bit of an assessment nerd, but I’ve found looking at the English and English literature papers and examiners’ reports from all those years ago a very useful exercise. It’s fascinating - to me at least - to see how some principles of assessment and approaches to understanding literature and language have changed radically but others have remained much the same. It’s also both reassuring and depressing that the pitfalls some candidates encounter haven’t changed much at all. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, indeed.
