Scribd
Upload
3 views

Examinerreport-Paper1-June2011

Uploaded by

Zaid Sarfaz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3 views

Examinerreport-Paper1-June2011

Uploaded by

Zaid Sarfaz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Examiners’ Report/

Principal Examiner Feedback

June 2011

International GCSE
English Language A (4EA0) Paper 01
Edexcel is one of the leading examining and awarding bodies in the UK and
throughout the world. We provide a wide range of qualifications including
academic, vocational, occupational and specific programmes for employers.
Through a network of UK and overseas offices, Edexcel’s centres receive the
support they need to help them deliver their education and training
programmes to learners.
For further information, please call our GCE line on 0844 576 0025, our
GCSE team on 0844 576 0027, or visit our website at www.edexcel.com.

If you have any subject specific questions about the content of this
Examiners’ Report that require the help of a subject specialist, you may find
our Ask The Expert email service helpful.

Ask The Expert can be accessed online at the following link:


http://www.edexcel.com/Aboutus/contact-us/

Alternatively, you can contact our English Advisor directly by sending an


email to Lionel Bolton on [email protected].
You can also telephone 0844 372 2188 to speak to a member of our subject
advisor team.

(If you are calling from outside the UK please dial + 44 1204 770 696 and
state that you would like to speak to the English subject specialist).

June 2011
Publications Code UG027859
All the material in this publication is copyright
© 2011 Pearson Education Ltd
Principal Examiner’s Report 4EA0 Paper 1 June 2011

Section A: Reading

Questions 1-4

The passage studied in Section A was a powerful piece of writing entitled


Don’t Do It! which attempted to persuade teenagers not to smoke. It was
adapted from a website which can be found at
www.perkel.com/politics/issues/smoke.htm. The passage proved to be
accessible to almost all candidates, with very few experiencing any
difficulties in reading comprehension. Question 1 was a single mark question
and was done well by almost all candidates. Question 2 asked candidates to
give three reasons that the writer gives for not starting to smoke. They were
able to select from a number of possible correct answers. Those who scored
less than full marks often did so because they repeated the same point,
albeit in different words, such as “It is addictive”, and, “It is a compulsion.”
Question 3 asked what we learn about the tobacco industry and the way it
regards teenagers. Responses were generally good. The stronger answers
showed a good understanding of the question and its focus upon the tobacco
industry whilst weaker responses, some with strong views, wrote more of an
opinion piece about smoking that lacked the focus the question was looking
for. The key discriminator in Section A is the higher mark tariff question 4
and its focus on the writer’s technique. In this instance candidates were
asked to focus upon how the writer tries to persuade teenagers not to take
up smoking. Bullet points offered further support for structuring an answer
around focus, layout and language. Examiners commented that the topic
was of obvious interest to most candidates and almost all were able to
recognise some features of persuasive writing. Able students were able to
analyse a range of techniques effectively and recognising the many ways in
that the writer sought to manipulate the reader. There were many quite
competent middle band answers that again commented on a range of
features, though sometimes listing techniques rather than explaining their
effect on the reader. As has happened in the past, some candidates were
able to find the relevant text but were less able to use the text to craft an
explanation. Linked text and paraphrase does not constitute an explanation.
Weaker answers tended to comment on a narrow range of “aspects of
smoking” and make rather obvious comments sometimes with little or
nothing on the writer’s techniques. On layout and presentation, surprisingly
the picture received very little attention from some candidates.

Section B: Reading and Writing

Question 5

Section B was based upon the pre-prepared text from the Edexcel
Anthology, Explorers, or Boys Messing About and focused upon the writer
and how he conveys his feelings as he reports on the rescue of the two men.
It was clear that many were well prepared and had plenty to say. Many had
clearly enjoyed reading about the various predicaments the two explorers
had experienced and showed involvement with the passage. Better quality
answers found a range of feelings to comment on together with the devices
used to communicate them. Weaker answers tended to be narrow in their
identification of feelings, some simply repeating that the author “hated” the
two explorers and applying that to any evidence they quoted. Some
candidates felt that the writer admired the men and their previous
adventures, missing the point that the earlier experience of the two men is
introduced only to be undermined with the phrase, “Despite their experience
…” Able students could offer their own interpretation of the pointless
foolhardiness of walking barefoot in the Himalayas whilst others often listed
the adventures with little or no comment.

Question 6

The writing task in Section B was linked to the reading task in section B and
asked candidates to write and explain their views on a proposal that the
government is intending to introduce a new law, making it illegal to take
part in dangerous sports and other dangerous activities. As no format was
specified, the open ended question led to a variety of approaches: most
gave a statement-type answer, though many addressed the reader more
directly in a speech or letter style. Better answers were sometimes quite
succinct with tight arguments and structure and with a strong grip on
relevance. Many used engaging phrases and devices such as rhetorical
questions to good effect. There was some sensible and perfectly appropriate
recycling of material from the previous question. For some candidates,
perhaps because the question talked about a future law, there was some
difficulty with verb tenses.

Weaker responses were sometimes very short and undeveloped. Some used
tenses inconsistently, making their answers less coherent and also struggled
with verb/noun agreement.

Section C: Writing

Question 7

The activity asked candidates to write about their early life in such a way
that the reader could appreciate why those early experiences were important
to the writer. This question gave many an opportunity to write engagingly
about personal experiences, which they developed at length in various
interesting ways. Some candidates chose to invent an older self, imagining
themselves to be successful middle-aged business men, some invented
personal traumas and most looked to develop sincere and compelling
autobiographical writing. The question allowed the most able free reign to
express their ideas, while offering enough structure and common ground for
weaker candidates to frame a response. Many were inspired to write about
immensely personal experiences in a way that was deliberately shaped and
crafted for effect with some candidates creating impressive effects through
the use of imagery and a variety of structures. Better answers demonstrated
a clear sense of direction where candidates were well aware of their effect on
the reader whilst weaker responses were often brief and tended towards
relaying stories from their childhood without any real sense of a reader or
without a clear purpose. The best answers were those which were fresh and
compellingly engaging rather than too self-consciously stylish. A key
discriminator between Band 2 and Band 3 writing is that of structure and
once again weaker responses were often lacking in paragraphing and a
sense of structural cohesion.
Further copies of this publication are available from
International Regional Offices at www.edexcel.com/international

For more information on Edexcel qualifications, please visit


www.edexcel.com

Alternatively, you can contact Customer Services at


www.edexcel.com/ask or on + 44 1204 770 696

Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828


with its registered office at Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE

You might also like