AQA Education (AQA) is a registered charity (number 1073334) and a company limited by guarantee registered in

England and Wales (number 3644723). Our registered address is AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX.

Teacher Standardising 2014 Delegate Booklet A-level English Language (Specification B)

Unit 4: Investigating Language (ENGB4)

Contents Page

Tasks, Marks and Weightings 3

Coursework Assessment Criteria – Language Investigation 4

Coursework Assessment Criteria – Media Text 5

Report on Examination (June 2013) 7

Candidate Record Forms 2014 15

Folder 1 17

Folder 2 43

Folder 3 66

Folder 4 80

Contact Points for A Level English Language B 92

3

GCE English Language B Specification for AS exams 2009 onwards and A2 exams 2010 onwards (version 1.1)

CourseworkAssessmentCriteriaUnit4–LanguageInvestigation• Maximum total marks for AO1 – 20 marks

• Maximum total marks for AO2 – 20 marks

• Maximum total marks for AO3 – 10 marks

• Maximum total for language investigation – 50 marks

Mark AO1

Selectandapplyarangeof linguistic methods, to communicate relevant knowledge using appropriateterminologyand coherent, accurate written expression.

AO2

Demonstrate critical understanding of a range of concepts and issues related to the constructionandanalysisof meanings in spoken and written language, using knowledge of linguistic approaches.

Mark AO3

Analyseandevaluatetheinfluenceofcontextualfactors on the production and reception of spoken and written language, showing knowledge of thekeyconstituentsoflanguage.

17-20 • Accurate and perceptive linguistic knowledge.

• Systematic and evaluative exploration of data selecting appropriate linguistic methods – suitably tentative conclusions drawn.

• Clear, perceptive understanding of a judicious range of concepts and ideas.

• Conceptualised discussion which illuminates data.

• Insightful methodology employed.

9-10 • Perceptive and insightful exploration of contextual factors.

• Analytical and systematic interpretation of context in the light of language features.

13-16 • Appropriate and generally accurate linguistic knowledge.

• Uses linguistic methods in a systematic way – some evaluative comment though not consistent.

• Sound understanding of a range of language concepts and issues surrounding the data.

• Developed discussion of ideas showing some conceptualised knowledge.

• Appropriate methodology applied with some insight.

7-8 • Clear and sometimes perceptive consideration of contextual issues/ pressures.

• Sound, occasionally sensitive analysis and engagement with context in the light of language features.

9-12 • Some linguistic knowledge and awareness.

• Applies and explores some linguistic methods – though not always convincing – beginnings of evaluative approach.

• Some awareness and understanding of concepts and issues in light of data.

• A number of issues explored, demonstrating the beginnings of better understanding.

• Appropriate methodology applied.

5-6 • Some consideration and understanding of contextual issues/ pressures surrounding data.

• Beginnings of awareness of the links between context and language features.

• Attempts to engage with issues.

3

4

GCE English Language B Specification for AS exams 2009 onwards and A2 exams 2010 onwards (version 1.1)

3

Mark AO1

Selectandapplyarangeof linguistic methods, to communicate relevant knowledge using appropriateterminologyand coherent, accurate written expression.

AO2

Demonstrate critical understanding of a range of concepts and issues related to the constructionandanalysisof meanings in spoken and written language, using knowledge of linguistic approaches.

Mark AO3

Analyseandevaluatetheinfluenceofcontextualfactors on the production and reception of spoken and written language, showing knowledge of thekeyconstituentsoflanguage.

5-8 • Limited knowledge and understanding.

• Basic linguistic methods applied – often not convincing in light of data.

• Limited number of concepts discussed relating to data.

• Superficial understanding of the parameters of the topic/data.

• Inappropriate methodology utilised.

3-4 • Awareness of one or two factors influencing the data – often broad and descriptive in focus.

• Some limited attempt to analyse contextual issues/pressures – often oversimplified.

1-4 • Rudimentary linguistic knowledge.

• Linguistic methods applied inaccurately or not at all to chosen data.

• Elementary understanding of language concepts related to chosen data.

• More knowledge than relevance. shown

• Flawed methodology chosen.

1-2 • Little or no attempt to explore contextual issues/pressures surrounding the data.

• Generalised, everyday awareness.

• Likely to paraphrase/ summarise data content.

0 • Nothing written • Nothing written 0 • Nothing written

5

GCE English Language B Specification for AS exams 2009 onwards and A2 exams 2010 onwards (version 1.1)

Coursework Assessment Criteria Unit 4 – Media Text • Maximumtotalmarksformediatext–30marks

Marks AO4 Demonstrate expertise and creativity in the use of English in a range of different contexts informed by linguistic study.

28-30

25-27

• Originality in the deployment of the structures and conventions associated with media texts.• Sensitive and convincing manipulation of register to meet demands of audience and

purpose.• Successful, effective and convincing new text; demonstrates ingenuity and finesse in the

use of original materials and ideas.

• Confident, controlled deployment of the structures and genre conventions. • Appropriate control of register, demonstrating sophisticated awareness of the demands of

audience and purpose.• Effective and sustained adaptation of original materials; sources manipulated and integrated

into entirely new text.

22-24

19-21

• Sustained deployment of appropriate structures and genre conventions; strong clarity and control of writing.

• Coherent register, secure writing style – effective for audience and purpose.• Effective adaptation of original materials for new audience and purpose.

• Competent deployment of structures and genre conventions - good clarity and control of writing.

• Growing sophistication in control of register – article likely to be effective for audience and purpose.

• Largely effective adaptation of original materials for new audience and purpose.

16-18

13-15

• Demonstrates control of genre requirements; good clarity and control in writing.• Effective register, demonstrating the ability to adapt writing to engage and interest audience.• Source original materials shaped to suit new audience/purpose – some lack of control at

times.

• Language choices generally effective and appropriate, demonstrating increasing control; some awareness of structures and genre conventions.

• Register mainly appropriate; some ability to adapt writing to engage and interest audience.• Partly effective transformation; attempts to shape original materials for new audience/

purpose.

10-12

7-9

• Some ability to control genre requirements for audience and purpose – likely to be inconsistent.

• Mainly appropriate register - possibly oversimplified at times or overly complex.• Some transformation - demonstrates awareness of the need to shape original materials for

new audience/purpose.

• Knowledge of genre, and purpose demonstrated; oversimplified audience awareness.• Beginnings of appropriate register – likely to be inconsistent across writing. • Some transformation for new audience / purpose, likely to shadow original materials.

4-6

1-3

• Some limited understanding of audience, purpose and genre. • Some limited control over writing - attempts to develop appropriate register.• Some limited attempt to transform original materials, though not very successfully; very

dependent on original sources.

• Little understanding of writing activity – inappropriate content; limited awareness of genre, audience and purpose.

• Ineffective register; imprecise language choices, little control over writing.• Little transformation of original materials leading to inappropriate content for task.

0 • Nothing written / totally inappropriate for tasks

3

6

A-LEVEL English Language B UNIT 4 - ENGB4 – Investigating Language Report on the Examination 2705 June 2013 – 6A13

Version: 1.0

7

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 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 school/college. 8

General

Moderators reported that generally this was a very positive series with the majority of schools and colleges 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 information given 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

9

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 these students 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 of

topics • 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 be included 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 limiting when 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

10

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 have different 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 acquisition and 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)

11

• 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 difficulty for 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 are disadvantaging themselves by not offering a precise genre and audience. The success of a student’s writing cannot be eas ily assessed or moderated when their genre is simply ‘an article’

12

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. Schools and 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 towards one 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). Administration 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 the mark 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

13

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

14

AQA Education (AQA) is a registered charity (number 1073334) and a company limited by guarantee registered in England

and Wales (number 3644723). Our registered address is AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX.

ENGB4/CRF

2014 Candidate Record FormA-level English Language B (2705)Unit 4 - Investigating Language (ENGB4)

This form should be attached to the candidate’s work and either retained at the centre or sent tothe moderator as required. The declarations should be completed by the candidate and teacheras indicated.

Centre number Centre name

Candidate number Candidate’s full name

Work submitted for assessment must be the candidate’s own. If candidates copy work, allow candidates to copyfrom them, or cheat in any other way, they may be disqualified.

Candidate declarationHave you received help/information from anyone other than subject teacher(s) to produce this work?

No Yes (give details below or on a separate sheet if necessary).

Please list below any books, leaflets or other materials (eg DVDs, software packages, internet information) used tocomplete this work not acknowledged in the work itself. Presenting materials copied from other sources withoutacknowledgement is regarded as deliberate deception.

From time to time we use anonymous examples of students’ work (in paper form and electronically) within ourguidance materials to illustrate particular points. If your work appears in AQA materials in this context and youobject to this, please contact us and we will remove it on reasonable notice.

I have read and understood the above. I confirm I produced the attached work without assistance other than thatwhich is acceptable under the scheme of assessment.

Candidate signature Date

Teacher declarationI confirm the candidate’s work was conducted under the conditions laid out by the specification. I haveauthenticated the candidate’s work and am satisfied,(to the best of my knowledge) that the work produced is solelythat of the candidate.

Teacher signature Date

15

To see how we comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 please see our Privacy Statement at aqa.org.uk/privacy

Candidate number Candidate’s full name

To be completed by the teacherMarks must be awarded in accordance with the instructions and criteria in the specification.

Assessment criteriaMaximummark

Markawarded

A01 Select and apply a range of linguistic methods, to communicate relevantknowledge using appropriate terminology and coherent, accurate writtenexpression.

20

A02 Demonstrate critical understanding of a range of concepts and issues relatedto the construction and analysis of meanings in spoken and written language,using knowledge of linguistic approaches.

20

A03 Analyse and evaluate the influence of contextual factors on the production andreception of spoken and written language, showing knowledge of the keyconstituents of language.

10

A04 Demonstrate expertise and creativity in the use of English in a range ofdifferent contexts informed by linguistic study.

30

Total mark 80

Piece 1 Language investigation

Title of work

Meets word countrequirements *

YES / NO

Piece 2 Media text

Title of work

Genretext type

AudienceMeets word countrequirements *

YES / NO

* delete as appropriate

Details of additional assistance givenRecord here details of any assistance given to this candidate which is beyond that given to the class as a wholeand beyond that described in the specification (continue on a separate sheet if necessary).

Concluding comments

16

English Language B

ENGB4 Investigating Language

Folder 1

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

English Language B

ENGB4 Investigating Language

Folder 2

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

English Language B

ENGB4 Investigating Language

Folder 3

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

English Language B

ENGB4 Investigating Language

Folder 4

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Contact Points

Contact Points for GCE English Language Specification B

For further help and advice about the above Specification, please contact: Subject Department: Stag Hill House

Guildford Surrey GU2 7XJ Telephone: 01483 556115

Ask AQA is our online service that is fast and efficient is available 24 hours a day enables you to find answers to your questions and send us new questions for a personal answer. http://web.aqa.org.uk/askaqa.php e-AQA is our extranet, which enables teachers to access information specific to their school or college through a secure website. Using e-AQA you can: see current and past exam results for students at your centre see graphs of exam results using Enhanced Results Analysis view recent exam papers, mark schemes and examiners' reports access our online shop to buy printed exam materials. http://web.aqa.org.uk/help/eaqa.php For help with Support Meeting Information, please contact:

Teacher Support Department: Email: teachercpd@aqa.org.uk Telephone: 0161 957 3646

For help with Publications, please contact: Publications: AQA Logistics Centre (Manchester)

Unit 2, Wheel Forge Way Ashburton Park Trafford Park Manchester M17 1EH Direct Line: 0844 209 6614 Fax No: 0161 953 1177 Email: publications@aqa.org.uk

97

98