GCSE English Literature Unit 2: Poetry Across Time Report on the Examination 47102H June 2013 Version: V1.0
Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 20yy 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 this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.
INTRODUCTION The increasing familiarity of this component was apparent this year, with some vibrant, interesting responses to a wide range of the poems in Moon on the Tides. There were very few examples of candidates struggling with the tier of entry, and even fewer examples of rubric infringements. In general, candidates approached this examination with confidence, clearly understanding exactly what they needed to do, and managing their workload and their time very effectively overall. Although there are still many cases of English departments all studying the same cluster, there were more examples of diversity within the same school this year, which might possibly suggest increasing confidence and familiarity with the Anthology. SECTION A Character and Voice This is always a very popular choice, and examiners noted that responses to both questions in this cluster were frequently and, often, very successful. There were many engaging, interested as well as interesting responses to Casehistory: Alison (Head Injury). The comparisons were many and varied, but some examples of the most successful focused on the loss of former autonomy in Horse Whisperer or Les Grands Seigneurs. The River God was also a very popular choice; comparisons here were particularly strong where candidates considered the nature of power as compared with Ozymandias or My Last Duchess. Place Once again, this cluster was not as much in evidence as the other three, with less than 30% of entries responding to these questions. However, from those that did, there were some stunning, high-level comparisons between The Wild Swans at Coole and The Blackbird of Glanmore, where ideas about how places link to important memories and sense of identity were particularly well-handled. Hard Water was also linked very successfully with the Yeats in terms of identity and belonging. Conflict The better responses to Question 5 were those with a focus on the idea of power in the question. Candidates in the main were comfortable with dealing with the hawk as a metaphor, which is a very appropriate reading in terms of the context of this poem as part of the Conflict cluster. The comparisons between Hawk Roosting and next to of course god america i were often eloquent and detailed, focusing in depth on the differences between perceptions of power and its effects on those in charge. Question 6 was notable in terms of the range and variety of poems chosen to make an effective comparison with The Yellow Palm. Although Belfast Confetti was a popular choice, with very effective links between the ways particular places are shown to have been negatively affected, this was by no means the only way that candidates approached this question. There were some very strong attitudinal comparisons made between this poem and Flag, for example, which is interesting as Flag was also often used to compare with Hawk Roosting in terms of the respective symbolic function. Although it is true for all the Section A responses, it was in Conflict particularly where the choice of second poem often strongly influenced the relative success of the response overall. For example, some candidates attempted a comparison between The Yellow Palm and Mametz Wood, and often came rather unstuck as they realised that this might not be a particularly useful comparative choice. Candidates who had been encouraged to think about different ways they might group the poems and make comparisons between them, were bestequipped to make informed choices and thereby construct the strongest comparative responses. 3 of 6
Relationships As always, this was the most popular cluster. This year, it appeared to polarise candidate achievement more than in previous series. There were some insightful responses to both Sonnet 116 and Born Yesterday, demonstrating very high levels of engagement with ideas and themes; linked to the variety of ways the poets had presented them. Many candidates dealt with the ambiguous levels of meaning in Sonnet 116 with extraordinary levels of skill, presenting detailed analyses of how the view of ideal love might be viewed as unrealistic and unobtainable. However, there was also a prevalence of comments about structure in Sonnet 116 that pointed to a lack of ability to link the points being made about structure to anything concrete about either ideas or writer s intention. For example, one senior examiner noted that some students were so stumped by the poem (and by Sonnet 43 ) that they were reduced to rather desperate comments: A sonnet has 14 lines because Valentine's Day is on 14th February. One student wrote that a sonnet has 15 lines (sic) because 15 is when teenagers generally fall in love. Another feature of responses to this poem was once again the ubiquitous turning the poem on its side, leading to some very odd comments about phallic imagery. There were also a good deal of candidates who talked about Shakespeare s homosexuality which led to some arguing the case for both Sonnet 116 and Hour being about homosexual love having to be hidden from society. In several schools, this idea was augmented by comments about the sailing metaphor in Sonnet 116 and how this was evidence to prove that the poem was about homosexual love, as all sailors were known to be gay in those times. It might be worth pointing out to students that many of these interpretations appear to have ideas in common with those expressed within increasingly prevalent digital media tutorials. Whilst there is always a place for high-quality resources designed to enable candidates to think independently and explore ideas about the poems, allowing external sources to take precedence over the more balanced interpretations offered by good English teachers (and indeed the students themselves) has to be tempered. Placing total reliance upon sites such as these for an interpretation of the poems is not helpful to candidates, especially when the interpretation offered therein is at best reductive, and at worst simply wrong. This leads to another observation made by the senior team with regard to this cluster. More than any of the other clusters, candidates studying Relationships appear to be under the misconception that AO4 is assessed in this component. As a result, they talk about Scannell s war journalism, the history of the sonnet, and even as one senior examiner noted, Duffy s rise to Laureate status. Whilst this is all very interesting, and has possibly been gleaned from their study of the poems, it is not going to get candidates any marks in the examination, as AO4 isn t assessed in this component. SECTION B Responses to Section B, always a delight to read, were exceptional this year. Universally, candidates grasped the central metaphor and dealt with it and its correlating ideas with empathy, sensitivity and very close attention to detail. It is once worth noting that many candidates performed at a higher level on the unseen than on the poems they had studied for Section A. Candidates really engaged with the ideas and the language in the poem, proving, in the words of one senior examiner, that they are capable of independent thought - offering alternative interpretations for many aspects of the poem, skills which were not always seen in their responses to Section A. There was a strong sense of candidates being ready and able to mine the text, looking in detail at some of the language and thinking about the variety of ways particular words or phrases could be interpreted. 4 of 6
GENERAL POINTS Many of the senior examiners noticed that the use of textual detail to support ideas has improved notably. The selection of apt, relevant evidence, sometimes in the form of direct quotation, has enabled some candidates to improve their performance overall. In some schools it appeared that this had become a departmental teaching focus, as all candidates in the school were able to use embedded evidence skilfully, regardless of their overall ability. A shared view across the examining team was once again that where candidates are thinking independently, such as with their response to the unseen, they often demonstrate a higher level of skill than in their response to Section A. If candidates are encouraged to think for themselves, rather than merely reciting what they have been taught in lessons, they are then enabled by the task in the exam to demonstrate a higher level of skill. Many middle band answers in particular were virtually identical from the same school. As one member of the team noted: many students fell down on Section A because they stuck to an interpretation of the poem they had obviously been taught, as the ideas appeared so often in the same school, which restricted their responses. Referring back to the observations made about media sites offering interpretations of the poems, it is worth repeating here that whilst we are keen to encourage and value original and convincing interpretations of texts, those students who achieve features of the higher mark bands generally are much more comfortable with exploring ideas and alternative interpretations, rather than repeating learned ideas which may on some occasions, as cited previously, be erroneous in the first place. Although not as prevalent as in previous series, it is worth mentioning that response to text does not require I like this one, in my opinion this poem is better than that poem, or suchlike. Response is asking for students to think about what they think the poem might mean, or might be about. Some candidates are increasingly able to form, sustain and develop a strong thread of comparison. However, this remains a key feature of underperformance. There are two ways in which candidates can be inhibited from performing well with AO3: where they have attempted to deal with the poems independently and then stick them together at the end, and where they have attempted to root their comparison in AO2. The best comparisons derive from taking an idea, or theme, or topic, and discussing how both poems deal with it. Once again it is really important to stress how far acronyms and / or learned essay structures can inhibit some candidates and lead to reductive responses. One examiner commented that: more than one school seemed to be following a prescribed essay structure in Section A which expected students to write first about structure, form, enjambment, caesura and end-stopped lines before eventually getting round to language and meaning. Better candidates were savvy enough to break away from the edict they had been asked to follow (or to ignore it altogether), but weaker candidates were frequently hamstrung by obediently adhering to what was effectively a wholeschool writing frame. Some, alas, never reached language or meaning. The final point is linked to the issue raised above. Acronyms and learned responses will invariably focus on AO2 elements. They lead to candidates looking for things to say about alliteration / onomatopoeia / enjambement, and so on. This is fine, of course when the feature is a dynamic, essential element of the poem and is being used by the poet to highlight particular ideas, themes, feelings and so on. However, we all know that the tendency to feature-spot leads to reductive responses. There is no requirement for technical vocabulary per se in this specification, and candidates who think that they are supposed to talk about technical elements sometimes come unstuck as they simply can t find anything to say other than the enjambement makes the poem flow and so on. AO2 assesses understanding of how language or structure or form links to 5 of 6
meaning not all three, and not if there isn t anything to say about one particular element. The questions are constructed to enable candidates to do this: the methods poets use to present ideas about is a principle of question construction. The most interesting method, usually, is the language. Examiners are looking for the extent to which candidates can talk about what they think the poem is about, and some of the ways the poet might have presented their ideas to the reader. As ever, candidates who respond with their own ideas tend to produce some surprising, individual and thought-provoking responses. 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 6 of 6