Examiner's report advice Prose

Many candidates flourished in the freedom allowed by the new question structure imposing their own parameters on questions selected. As with last year one of the main concerns arising from this unit was the candidates focus on quantity rather than quality. Perhaps the longer time provided for this unit and the longer booklets compelled some candidates to write until their time was up even when they had nothing new to say but even the best candidates were guilty of repetition: some repeated the same argument and evidence not just once but two or three times thus lessening the impact of their original argument. Weaker candidates had an over-reliance on narrative in their responses. Additional time would be better spent on planning, organising and reviewing responses. This was most clearly evident in 4(a) where it was clear that candidates knew the material but the differentiator was in their ability to plan and sequence this material, developing links and continuity of argument.

Improving analysis of language and writers’ methods by candidates was evident with some excellent comments on setting and structure in particular. Other positives included evidence of clear engagement with, and enjoyment of, texts studied which came through the personal response elements of the questions. Candidates demonstrated sound knowledge of texts and all were most comfortable when writing about ‘characters’; less so when dealing with ‘themes’.

Higher achieving candidates demonstrated their capacity to be analytical in their responses whilst others lapsed into explanation, description or narrative and paraphrasing. This was particularly true for candidates who answered the extract-based question and many examiners found that candidates did not make the most of the extract provided. A lack of language analysis was noted as well as candidates’ inability to take characterisation, setting, structure, etc. in the extract and explore how these were developed ‘elsewhere in the novel’.

Finally, the main factor in determining success for candidates is evidenced in their ability to exploit the key terms of the question as set out in the question stem.