aqa engb4 wre jun13

8/10/2019 Aqa Engb4 Wre Jun13

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aqa-engb4-wre-jun13 1/8

A-LEVEL English Language B UNIT 4 - ENGB4 – Investigating LanguageReport on the Examination

2705June 2013 – 6A13

Version: 1.0



Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk

Copyright © 2013 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from thisbooklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy anymaterial that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the school/college.



REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE B – ENGB4 – JUNE 13 (6A13)

3 of 8

General

Moderators reported that generally this was a very positive series with the majority of schools andcolleges submitting student work which was entirely within the spirit of the specification. Where

problems occurred moderators felt that there were three main issues. These were:

• Use of unproductive investigation methodologies which led to unhelpful approaches to data

collection and analysis

• Approaches to the media text which did not allow students to meet the ‘inform purpose’ of the

writing or use of a vague chosen audience and / or genre for the text

• Overly lenient assessment – particularly around the higher and lower extremes of the

assessment criteria

This report will therefore include a key focus on these areas. As always the advice and informationgiven in the body of this report is intended to help schools and colleges feel confident to teach and

assess further series of this unit. Further individual advice can be sought via the Coursework

Adviser system and the Centre Standardising Materials published in the autumn.

Language Investigation

This element of the folder is designed to encourage students to independently pursue ‘interesting

questions about language in use’, and once again moderators were impressed by the variety of

topics and approaches undertaken by students. Examples included:

• Language and power, eg analysis of the US presidential debates, representation of power in

The Thick of it, comparison of football coaches’ half-time talk, analysis of the language of

protest lyrics

• Language and gender, eg analysis of the representation of gender on gravestones, comparison

of gender representation on greeting cards, a comparison of a male and female teacher

teaching the same class, a comparison of a male and female leading a group activity

• Language and technology, eg analysis of non-standard forms on Facebook, a comparison of

the language of League of Legends players, an analysis of athletics TV commentary

• Second language acquisition, eg an analysis of code-switching at a family meal, an analysis of

postcards sent between two bilingual speakers

• Language and media, eg a comparison of how the monarchy are represented in two

newspapers, an analysis of how Lance Armstrong was represented in the media

• Language and occupation, eg a comparison of teachers’ language use across a working day,

an analysis of employee newsletters (Marks and Spencer)

• Child language acquisition, eg analysis of how children’s fiction is shaped to engage different

age groups, a comparison of preschool websites

• Language change, eg analysis of how the language of legal inquests has changed over time, a

study of the language of superheroes over time

• Language and dialect, eg analysis of dialect features in the talk of Suffolk natives, analysis of

how social dialects develop between Year 7 and Year 13 in form groups

Clearly these investigations only represent a small number of students, but what moderators were

particularly impressed to see was the way titles were shaped to allow students to pursue




4 of 8

interesting language questions and challenge existing language theory. Also in schools and

colleges where students had been encouraged to pursue topics which were of personal interest,

moderators remarked that student performance was improved. A reason for this may be that thesestudents were prepared to spend longer analysing their data leading to more thoughtful analysis; in

addition the quality and range of the contextual analysis was often more perceptive in these

folders.

As a general reminder to all schools and colleges, the following list represents some essential

components for delivery of the language investigation:

• investigations should allow students to demonstrate that they can work independently in the

selection of their topic, focus of the investigation and approach to data analysis

• students should be supported by their teachers – particularly in areas of ethics and suitability oftopics

• investigations should be data driven (methodologies are central to success)

• in terms of choosing what data to work with, there is no hierarchy of data types

• in terms of deciding how to analysis data, there is no hierarchy of language methods (best

practice demonstrates salient choice and shaping to meet the demands of the question) nor is

there a prescribed number of methods for an investigation (again this is dependent on the

question and / or focus of the investigation)

• evidence of student learning should be clear in the approach to the language investigation in

terms of subheadings and use of data to exemplify comment

• referencing is a mandatory section of the investigation and referencing skills should beincluded in delivery of this unit.

Schools and colleges or teachers who are new to this unit may also find it helpful to refer to the

June 2010 ENGB4 Principal Moderator’s Report, as this includes further details of the key

characteristics of the most and least successful language investigations in terms of approaches

and outcomes.

Investigation Methodologies

This section of the language investigation should provide a clear and concise account of the

methodology chosen for data selection. Most students set themselves sensible and appropriate

methods of data collection, often balancing quantitative and qualitative approaches. However,

some students still tend to explain and describe data collection in unnecessary detail, focusing on

the ‘physical’ aspects of where and how the data was collected, which does not fully illuminate the

collection process or the approaches to be taken in the data analysis section.

Some moderators noted that there were some school/college-wide approaches to the methodology

section which suggested that students had not been encouraged to take independent approaches

to data collection or analysis. Where a student chooses to comment on the subheadings or

questions which will ‘shape’ the analysis section, this should include more information than a list of

language methodologies, eg lexis, grammar, graphology. This approach is particularly limitingwhen it is clear that all students have been advised to use the same language methods to analyse

a range of different data types. Moderators remarked that where students adapted a language




5 of 8

method into a specific question or statement about their data eg A comparison of politeness

strategies used by Speaker A and B, credit could be awarded for this approach and the student

was more likely to keep a tight focus on their investigation title. Ideally every student should havedifferent subheadings or questions which directly relate to their topic and focus. Where this is not

the case AO2 is affected because the student does not reveal knowledge about language concepts

and AO1 is affected because the language methods cannot be described as ‘salient’.

Several moderators remarked that they saw questionnaires used both as a method for data

collection and as a way of gaining more detail about the contextual factors surrounding the data.

This often proved to be a very successful approach. Several moderators also commented that

students who chose to ‘test’ or ‘repeat’ an existing language theory, eg accommodation theory,

often produced very purposeful and successful investigations. Once again case studies provided

many students with a very successful starting point when considering child language acquisitionand second language acquisition.

Some moderators raised concerns that in a minority of cases students did not adequately consider

ethical issues surrounding their data collection, and worryingly this was often ignored in the

school’s or college’s assessment. Schools and colleges should ensure that students always have

prior permission to record speech or collect written data, and must intervene early in the process if

it is clear that these permissions have not been sought. Schools and colleges are also reminded

that students must be especially careful when collecting data from children or other vulnerable

groups. Furthermore, schools and colleges should encourage students to make sure that private

data is anonymised where possible.

All feedback from moderators this series commented on the fact that where a student had used a

careful methodology to collect data and selected salient methods and or questions to analyse the

data, this always resulted in a more interesting language investigation. It is clear that the

methodology is central to success at all levels and as such it is a fundamental aspect of the

teaching and learning for this unit.

For further advice on selecting an appropriate methodology to set up a language investigation

please refer to the texts listed on the AQA resources list (available in the Teaching and Learning

Resources section of the AQA website) or contact your Coursework Adviser.

Media Text

This element of the ENGB4 folder continues to be handled in very different ways by schools and

colleges. Some schools and colleges follow the specification requirements closely and as such

students produced some excellent work. Examples of interesting media texts this series included:

• How to bluff your way on Twitter (Guardian newspaper article)

• Challenge your book club: choose some language approaches to literature (online book club

article)

• How powerful is our PM? (Times Online article)

• Will my child ever speak? (Women’s Hour script about child language acquisition)

http://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/english/a-level/english-language-b-2705/teaching-and-learning-resources









6 of 8

• What your diaries reveal about you (Good Housekeeping article)

• What Disney princess are you? (Cosmo article)

• How credible is your coach? Some language tricks to spot a good coach (Men’s Health article)

Moderators remarked that the common theme demonstrated in a successful media text was the

balance of language information and audience engagement. Effective writing often contained few

examples of ‘language jargon’ as the ideas and terms were completely mediated into a new article.

However, at the heart of these articles was a desire to ‘teach’ and ‘inform’ about language

concepts, and moderators were very clear that those students who wrote to inform were always

more convincing than those who added some language information into an article driven by a

general topic.

Despite many examples of good practice this series there are two areas which remain a difficultyfor some schools and colleges, and moderators commented that unfortunately some students are

disadvantaged because of unhelpful approaches taken to this element of the ENGB4 folder.

Language content linked to the ‘inform purpose’

This series in some schools and colleges there was evidence that the language content of the

media text was not being met appropriately. Interestingly there were very few instances where the

language content was completely missing, but there was increasing evidence that some students

were using one or two technical language terms in the body of their writing assuming that this met

the specification requirements. Unfortunately for these students this often resulted in a significant

reduction in their mark as this approach fails to meet the requirements of this task, and leaves

students unable to demonstrate the same level of skill as a student who mediates and transforms

complex language concepts in their writing.

Schools and colleges are reminded that the primary purpose of the media text is to inform a new

audience (who does not study language) about language concepts and theories (Specification,

p.13). The starting point for choosing what to write about is the ‘broad’ link to the investigation

topic, i.e. if the investigation focuses on political speeches, the language topic is ‘power’, and this

allows the student to produce a media text on any aspect of language and power. Students do not

have to choose exactly the same focus as their investigation; in fact evidence suggests that some

students are significantly advantaged by developing a different aspect of their investigation focus.

An example of this approach was highlighted by a student from this series who focused on sport

commentaries for the investigation, which comes under the ‘broad’ topic of language and

technology. The accompanying media text focused on a different aspect of technology – twitter

conventions, taking a ‘How to...’ approach to teaching about the language conventions of twitter.

Chosen audience and genre of the text

In the majority of schools and colleges the genres attempted for this task are fairly similar, with

many students producing articles for named magazines or broadsheet newspapers. Website

articles are also a particularly popular and successful genre. However, some students aredisadvantaging themselves by not offering a precise genre and audience. The success of a

student’s writing cannot be easily assessed or moderated when their genre is simply ‘an article’




7 of 8

with ‘an adult’ or ‘general’ audience. Schools and colleges should encourage students to choose

precise genres, eg The Times Online or Good Housekeeping, so that students can demonstrate

that they can tailor their writing to meet the demands of particular audiences and genres. Schoolsand colleges should remind their students that they should be building on the knowledge and skills

gained from ENGB2 when considering this aspect of the media text.

Internal Assessment

Several moderators commented that there seemed to be a pattern of overly lenient assessment

emerging in some schools and colleges this series and that this was particularly apparent at the

extremes of the mark scheme. Schools and colleges are reminded that all students need to be

measured against the assessment criteria, ideally referencing Centre Standardising Materials.

Particular care should be taken with assessment where student performance is biased towardsone area of the mark scheme, where there are very few students and where leniency or severity

has been identified in the assessment for previous series.

Internal moderation should demonstrate that there is a consistent approach in the school or college

to standardising folders, and in the majority of cases moderators were impressed by the

professional and rigorous approach taken to cross marking. Many schools and colleges use an

internal assessment sheet which allows for more than one teacher to comment on the quality of

each assessment objective; this is very good practice. Less helpful is a photocopy of the

assessment criteria highlighting the marks awarded, as this does not provide evidence from the

student’s work to explain why individual marks were chosen.

In some cases moderators commented that schools and colleges used letter grades in the

assessment of students’ work. This style of assessment should be avoided, as schools and

colleges need to work with only the numerical mark scheme at this stage of the process. This

approach was particularly unhelpful when letter grades appeared to be the target for the numerical

marks (unexplained positive adjustments often accompany these folders).

Administ rat ion Issues

Schools and colleges are reminded that:

• students’ marks need to be carefully checked as they are transferred between student work to

the Candidate Record Form (CRF)

• data for the language investigation should be in paper format only and securely attached

• drafts, multiple copies of data and style models should not be included in the folder

• all folders should contain teacher comments and annotation which indicate how the marks

were awarded to that folder

• normal post should be used rather than special or recorded delivery which requires signatures.

Overall moderators remarked that this was a very positive series for this unit. Indeed the vast

majority of students produced work which was engaging, interesting and relevant at all levels of themark scheme. In these cases it was clear that students had been very well supported and that

teachers were entirely conversant with all aspects of the specification. Schools and colleges should




8 of 8

be congratulated on this achievement. The success of this coursework unit rests which teachers

who are prepared to encourage students to behave independently and take risks in their learning,

and these skills benefit students well beyond their A-level experience.

Mark Ranges and Award of Grades

Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics

page of the AQA Website.

Converting Marks into UMS marks

Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below.

UMS conversion calculator www.aqa.org.uk/umsconversion

http://web.aqa.org.uk/over/stat.php?id=01&prev=01

http://www.aqa.org.uk/umsconversion




http://web.aqa.org.uk/over/stat.php?id=01&prev=01

aqa engb4 wre jun13

Documents