GCE English Language and Literature Coursework Exemplars A2 unit 6EL04

Candidate A

Moderator commentary: The extract from a ‘speculative’ novel has a good starting point with the quote from Woolf to set the scene. It is a controlled, effective first person narrative with implications of a wider context. Sound knowledge of genre conventions and influence of stimulus texts is discernible. The article demonstrates clear evidence of research. Good grasp of the genre with appropriate rhetorical features and smooth grammatical transitions. Maintains a suitable register and draws to a firm conclusion. The commentary provides a clear explanation of the rationale. The non-fiction task has been written for a clearly defined audience. The student understands reader/writer rapport and shows excellent knowledge of genre conventions in both tasks. Moderator mark:

73

Candidate B

Moderator commentary:

The fictionalised diary/letter is confusing in terms of dates and context and uneven in approach. Links between past and present are uncertain. The piece lacks a sense of direction. There is some knowledge of genre conventions but this is not sustained. The review of a novel is stronger than the fiction piece but is still insecure, relying heavily on paraphrase. The commentary clarifies the rationale and is needed to understand the task choices and intentions. The candidate Identifies very obvious features eg, using the first person for a letter. There is some understanding of magazine article conventions but why make the assumption that readers of the article would have read the novel? The candidate has possibly been restricted by the choice of stimulus text: the fiction task is an attempt to re-write the original rather than using it for inspiration. Moderator mark: 42

Candidate C

Moderator commentary:

This is a formulaic choice for the fiction task. There is some awareness of genre conventions but the narrative is too superficial and repetitive. A mixture of typos, grammatical flaws and punctuation errors impede the narrative. There is no real evidence of the influence of any stimulus texts. The article is also uneven with shifts in tone from the formal to the colloquial. Paragraphs have some clumsy transitions and expression is often awkward. The commentary provides a vague discussion of the rationale and the links with ‘The Lovely Bones’ are very tenuous. The commentary is observational rather than analytical. This is a slim, unsubstantial folder. Moderator mark: 23

Candidate

D

Moderator commentary:

This is an excellent example of a genuine non-fiction task. The article is well informed with extensive research and a difficult subject is handled with sensitivity. The discussion is insightful and perceptive and the article is of publishable quality. The fiction task is intriguing and, although not quite as secure in terms of style as the article (some rather stilted choices of expression and vocabulary), it maintains pace and momentum, effectively enticing the reader. The commentary demonstrates extensive reading and research. Analysis of the stimulus texts and the candidate’s own writing is detailed and discriminating. There is close exploration of a range of literary and linguistic techniques and how they contribute to the deliberate crafting of the texts. Moderator mark:

77

Candidate E

Moderator commentary:

The non-fiction task is an effective article that draws on techniques used in charity campaigns. The candidate successfully employs the mock fiction approach. In the fiction task there is good attempt to create atmosphere in the story, even if the tone is uneven at times, making the build up of menace not entirely convincing. However, the candidate is aware of the genre conventions. The commentary makes immediate links between the two creative tasks and explains the rationale for the choices made. There is clear discussion of authorial intentions and techniques used to interest the audiences. The commentary evaluates the influence of the stimulus texts on the choices of theme, style and narrative point of view. Moderator mark:

58