Hello everybody and welcome to this video on AQA English Language paper 2.
Now the November re-sit results came out last week, and with them the examiners’ reports.
In today’s video I will take you through some of the key points from the examiners’
reports for 2019, from both the November and the June exams.
QUESTION 2:
If you’ve seen my animated videos you’ll know that question 2 is about inferring or
interpreting meaning.
One good approach is (for example in a question about summarising differences) to find a point
of difference, back it up with relevant quotations and then ask yourself ‘given that this is
the difference, what does this lead me to realise about what I’ve been asked to focus
on’?.
That last bit is where the inference comes in.
However, what I want to focus on for this video is how the June 2019 report gave a helpful
tip on how you might achieve this.
It said:
‘Encouraging students to write in detail is an approach well worth adopting, as it
can often be the means of moving up a level.
For example, a student working at level 2 might typically attempt to make one inference,
and then move on to make a separate point.
However, by focusing and commenting further on the same point, the student is more likely
to provide the explanation they need to meet the criteria for ‘clear’ at level 3.
By the same token, a student working at level 3, by engaging in more detail with the same
point and looking to extend and develop their comment with further inferences, is in a better
position to move into level 4.
Coaching students in the patience required to add depth and detail to their responses
can only be a positive way forward for all abilities.’
OK so that’s great, but remember, as an 8 mark question you’re only going to spend
10 minutes or so on question 2, but those points you do make in that time should be
covered in detail.
QUESTION 3 is the language analysis question in paper 2, and the key point here is to contextualise
your comments:.
Let me give an example of what I mean by that.
One of the past papers had some colour imagery in the source, for example the description
of a car as white (that’s not what it was - I don’t give away specifics about the
papers, because you’re likely to sit them for your mocks).
But with that as an example, many students jumped on the colour white and wrote things
like: ‘The car is white because it is innocent, pure, angelic or fragile.
Now you can see what was happening here - students were using what they knew about colour imagery,
but not really thinking about the extract itself.
This type of ‘one size fits all’ approach to language analysis does not support students
in making clear, contextualised, specific comments on the effects of writers’ choices
of language.’
In other words, you can’t just go in with pre conceived ideas about language and its
effects: the effect you write about should be specific to the source you’re analysing.
Question 4: In question 4, about the writers’ viewpoints
and perspectives, it’s important to identify not just the perspective but the method used
to present it.
A great approach here is this: Step 1: What ARE the attitudes
Step 2:: What methods are used to present the attitudes?
Step 3: Analysis of WHY those methods are used
Question 5: Form is important
Again, something I go through in my videos, which came up in the November report, is the
importance of form.
The report stated that ‘The range of forms expected of students in response to the task
in Question 5 is relatively limited and it is therefore anticipated that students will
make some attempt to adapt the tone, style and register of their writing to match the
audience, purpose and form in the task.
Whilst many students were able to do just that, and write lively and engaging articles,
there were too many examples of students writing letters to indiscriminate recipients, or writing
speeches for unspecified events.
Some evidence of being aware of the correct form and adapting the style appropriately
to the task is required to reach the higher marks.’
I have a video on form, which I will link at the end of this video.
Secondly, students are not required to cover every thread in the statement in their response
- selecting one of two threads can lead to a clearer argument.
For example, let’s look at a sample question 5 (again, this wasn’t the one from the exam):
‘School uniform has no place in modern education.
It is old fashioned, expensive and uncomfortable.
Its excessive price puts parents under extreme financial pressure, and it does not prepare
students for their future workplace.’
Write a letter to your head teacher in which you argue for the abolition of school uniform.
In that question you would not have to write one section about uniform being old fashioned,
then another about it being expensive, another on it being uncomfortable, another about the
financial pressure and finally a section on it not preparing students for the future workplace.
The Nov 2019 report stated that ’students who were able to offer extended ideas, particularly
if they became more complex as they developed’ did better than students who tried to cover
every single thread of the question and, in doing so, were unable to write in depth.