Many candidates did well or very well in the mock on this
paper. The best marks were strong grade As or even A*. However, some candidates
were a grade or more below their target grades and are advised to improve their
revision strategies before the real examinations in May
.
This is what the official report on the 2005 paper, which you sat as the mock,
stated:
Examiners’ Report from 2005 summer series examinations: Paper 2
Section A Poems from Different Cultures
The examiners stressed the importance of studying a minimum of all
the poems in one of the clusters.
They caution that some of the material candidates find on
the internet is wrong, and state: ‘ For example, in several centres
candidates asserted that the event in Blessing was sudden rainfall and
that , in Hurricane Hits England, the poem’s conclusion indicated the
poet’s desire to return to her homeland in the Caribbean.’
The following section is extremely helpful to candidates:
‘There was also some concern expressed with regard to
the way some candidates wrote about technique or method.
Examiners reported figures of speech being identified but
not sensibly explained to show a particular significance.
For example, there were many candidates who referred to the
use of the simile ‘ buzzed like flies’ in Night of the Scorpion
but failed to explore the implications of this. Similarly vague
expressions like ‘ it shows negative/ positive feelings’ and ‘
gives a better picture in your head’ occurred frequently,
as did references to ‘strong’ and ‘powerful’ words. Candidates
need to show awareness that it is the use of a word in a
particular context that makes it ‘powerful’ and not the word itself.
Centres should be aware that candidates do best when they have open
minds about the poems and the confidence to to interpret them in the
way that is most appropriate to the question they are answering.
Happily many examiners reported clear evidence of excellent teaching
which had sought to genuinely explore meaning, examine technique and
develop personal response and interpretation. Where this was the case,
the responses of the candidates,across the range of ability, were a
delight to read.
A simple, time-saving point that centre might like to clarify
with candidates is that , where the title of a poem is lengthy,
as in Two Scavengers in a Truck, Two Beautiful People in a Mercedes
and Presents from my Aunts in Pakistan, it is wholly acceptable to
abbreviate the title, for example to Scavengers and Presents.’
Causes of lost marks to avoid include:
choosing a second poem from the literature section (not permitted) rather
than from within the Different Cultures section
failure to address the key words in the title, which asked candidates to
compare the ways an event is described
forgetting to compare and contrast the poems
a belief that anything about a poem should be written down in the chance
that it may be relevant
insufficient evidence of planning a flowing, coherent answer
the use of a colloquial style, as if chatting about
a poem rather than analysing it appropriately in written analytical prose.
Clearly a thoughtful analysis of, say, Blessing
and Night of the Scorpion (a popular pairing), will emphasise
that both poems use the sound of words to suggest aspects of meaning (for example,
the chanting in Scorpion and the rush of water in Blessing.
that Blessing
leaves us to draw out the contrast with wetter cultures and the religious
implications implied by the lexis (choice of words)
that, in contrast, Scorpion explicitly contrasts the new, rational,
western medicine with the superstition of the peasants, whose rituals, it is implied
by the dismissive simile 'buzzed like flies', are an irritation.
that nevertheless, there is a subtle meaning for us to infer in Scorpion
concerning the love and sacrifice which mothers are willing to make for their
children
The list, of course, needs to continue.
Candidates who choose
to write about Scavengers
must remember the implied political message and that the poet is
attempting a form of dramatic immediacy expressed as his 'stream of consciousness',
claiming to be describing his actual view of a street scene.
Section B Writing to Inform, Expain and Describe
The examiners emphasise that the candidates who plan and edit (check and improve) work are generally the most successful.
It is important to remember
this common sense fact:
an English examination is looking for evidence that a candidate can correctly
deploy a range of sophisticated vocabulary, sentence structure and punctuation.
In other words, yes, it is possible to write a thin, conversational
piece in correctly spelled monosyllables with no mistakes and still receive a low mark.
If a candidate does not include:
speech marks
question and exclamation marks
complex, irregular spellings (eg chaos, chaotic)
complex and compound sentences (see the section on easy ways to improve your mark
on this site)
some figurative language, such as similes and metaphors
then there is no way that an examiner can be confident that the candidate
is able to manage any of these aspects of English writing.
A sort of transcript in one paragraph of an informal talk about ambition, for example,
would not be
the same as a piece of explanatory writing on the same subject.
A good test to ascertain whether writing is
more a transcript of speech than in a written register is to look at the percentage of
monosyllabic words: this is very high in speech, but much lower in writing. I recommend
becoming a regular reader of quality prose, such as that found
in a quality newspaper. Candidates must avoid giving the impression,
through a colloquial writing style, that they are insufficiently familiar with the
characteristics of thoughtful, intelligent, written English.
For Lit.mock advice, click here
Return to home