Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

January 2020

Pearson Edexcel International GCSE

In English Language A (4EA1)
Paper 1R: Non-fiction and Transactional Writing
Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications

Edexcel and BTEC qualifications are awarded by Pearson, the UK’s largest awarding
body. We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational,
occupational and specific programmes for employers. For further information visit our
qualifications websites at www.edexcel.com or www.btec.co.uk. Alternatively, you can
get in touch with us using the details on our contact us page at
www.edexcel.com/contactus.

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

Pearson aspires to be the world’s leading learning company. Our aim is to help everyone
progress in their lives through education. We believe in every kind of learning, for all
kinds of people, wherever they are in the world. We’ve been involved in education for
over 150 years, and by working across 70 countries, in 100 languages, we have built
an international reputation for our commitment to high standards and raising
achievement through innovation in education. Find out more about how we can help
you and your students at: www.pearson.com/uk

January 2020
Publications Code 4EA1_01R_2001_PEF
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2020
Introduction

January 2020 saw the second January series of the International GCSE English
Language Specification 4EA1 and this examination paper is Unit 1: Non-fiction and
Transactional Writing which is sat by all candidates.

The paper is organised into two parts.

Section A, worth a total of 45 marks, tests reading skills and is based on an unseen
passage and a text from the International GCSE English Anthology with a total
word count across the two extracts of approximately 2000 words. In this series, the
unseen extract was adapted from Indian Relay: Magical racing in the mountains by
Matt Majendie, in which the writer gives an account of the sport of Indian Relay
which is played by Native American tribes. The Anthology text was the extract from
A Game of Polo with a Headless Goat, in which Emma Levine writes about a donkey
race which she observed in Karachi, Pakistan. Candidates are advised to spend
about 1 hour and 30 minutes on this section.

Section B, also worth a total of 45 marks, offers candidates a choice of two

transactional writing tasks. A particular form will always be specified and for this
series the two tasks were to write a letter to a newspaper in response to an article
about competitive sport or a guide on road safety aimed at teenagers. Candidates
are advised to spend about 45 minutes on this section.

The paper was well received with examiners noting that the unseen text was
accessible to students of all abilities and provided a good range of material for the
comparison question. Many candidates engaged fully with both texts and
responded with interest and enthusiasm.

There was evidence that most candidates had been well-prepared for the
examination with the majority of them attempting every question but they should
be reminded of the necessity to read all the printed instructions on the
examination paper very carefully and follow them precisely.

Section A
Questions 1-3 are based on the unseen extract and are all assessed for AO1: Read
and understand a variety of texts, selecting and interpreting information, ideas and
perspectives.

Question 1
This question, which tests the skills of selection and retrieval is intended to serve
as a straightforward way into the paper and most candidates were able to select
two apt words or phrases that described an Indian Relay race. There were a
number of possible choices and all were chosen quite evenly.

The given line references for the question were 4-6 but a significant minority of
candidates did not achieve the full 2 marks because they selected words or
phrases from outside these lines, most commonly from the first 3 lines which they
had perhaps anticipated would be the focus for the question, for example
‘magical’.

Some candidates simply copied out the whole of the given lines and could not be
awarded any marks as no selection of relevant material had been made.

Question 2
This is a 4 mark question that requires candidates to interpret information, ideas
and perspectives. For this examination they were asked to explain what we learn
about Kendall Old Horn in lines 10-22. There were a number of possible responses
to this question and most candidates achieved full or nearly full marks by working
through the given lines and making a number of clear points. Many considered
how Kendall Old Horn was experienced and enthused by the racing. A few misread
or misinterpreted parts of the section and thought that Kendall Old Horn was the
race itself rather than a person.

Candidates need to follow the instruction ‘In your own words’ and in this series
examiners felt that candidates had been generally well-prepared and did this quite
successfully. There were a few who included some analysis of language and
structure, an AO2 skill that cannot here be rewarded, but on the whole this did not
prevent them from making several relevant points which could be credited.

Whilst it might be possible to gain four marks by making fewer than four points if
they are well-developed, the most successful approach for candidates is to make
four clear and distinct points. However, it is important to remember that the
question asks for an explanation and therefore, although it is not necessary to
write at length, it is not acceptable to bullet point very brief points and the
response should be written in full and complete sentences that clearly show
understanding and secure interpretation. A few candidates did not achieve full
marks because they provided an overview of the whole extract and did not focus
on the question or the given line references.

Question 3
This is the final AO1 question; it is worth 5 marks and, like question 2, requires
candidates to show their understanding of the text by selecting and interpreting
ideas, information and perspectives. For this examination, they were asked to
describe the documentary film made by Charles Dye, using lines 32-55. In question
3, candidates are told that they ‘may support’ their points ‘with brief quotations’
and many did so to good effect. Some candidates quoted at length and expected
these to act as a substitute for their own understanding and commentary but
answers including overlong quotations rarely gained full marks.

Many candidates adopted the very successful approach of making five clear points,
sometimes set out separately on the page, written in full and complete sentences
and supported by relevant brief quotations. There is no need for comments on the
language used in the quotations and whilst examiners noted that fewer candidates
were doing so, a small number did spend valuable time on analysis of language
and structure, an AO2 requirement, for which again, as with question 2, they could
not here be credited.

There were a number of possible points that could be made and most candidates
scored 4 or 5 marks. A few candidates did not achieve many marks because they
made only a couple of points or failed to focus on the question and did not
comment on the documentary and offered points that related to other parts of the
text.

The best answers used a good balance of short quotation and comment, paying
attention to how many marks the question is worth and making five clear and
discrete points.

Question 4
This question is on Text Two, the Anthology text, and is assessed for AO2:
Understand and analyse how writers use linguistic and structural devices to
achieve their effects. It is therefore a more challenging and discriminatory question
and is worth 12 marks divided over 5 levels.

In this examination, candidates were asked how the writer, Emma Levine, uses
language and structure in the extract from A Game of Polo with a Headless Goat to
present Yaqoob and Iqbal. This piece contains a wide range of features of language
and structure as exemplified in the mark scheme but examiners were advised that
these are just examples of possible points that could be made and instructed that
they must reward any valid points that candidates make that are securely rooted
in the text. There does not need to be an equal number of points on language and
structure but both should be addressed as, indeed, they were by most candidates.

Examiners noted that this question was ‘generally answered well with candidates
showing at least a sound understanding of the text’. Most candidates achieved a
mark within level 3 or above; at the lowest level there were just a few candidates to
whom the Anthology text seemed unfamiliar. At level 2, candidates were able to
select quotations and use subject terminology but sometimes this led to little more
than feature spotting with some comment on the generic effect of techniques such
as ‘short sentences create impact’ or ‘this encourages the reader to read on’ rather
than considering the effect within this particular text.

Mid-level responses offered sound explanation of the text with points supported
by relevant quotations. Examiners noted however, that quite a number of
candidates did not focus sufficiently on Yaqoob and Iqbal but rather gave a general
overview of the extract or wrote more about Levine and her reaction to the race.
Whilst it may be very useful to use Sample Assessment Material and past exam
papers for practice, candidates need to be reminded that the focus of the question
on a particular text will vary and they should underline or highlight the key words
to ensure that they keep on task. One useful mnemonic that was noticed written
on a script was Relate To The Question and this proved to be a useful reminder!
It is important to note that there is no specified number of points that a candidate
is required to make and that for the higher levels they need to be exploring and
analysing features which may lead to fewer points but a demonstration of a
greater depth of understanding.

The mark grid does make reference to sentence structure at level 3 and above as a
feature that could be written about but it is important to remember there are
many other elements of structure that students could choose to analyse. Stronger
responses showed a subtle and astute understanding of how language and
structure points can be interlinked with one candidate stating that: ‘Levine uses
direct speech to present Iqbal’s demeanour as calm and steady, By employing a
modal verb, ‘should’, he is presented as an advisor rather than a commander’.

Some impressive answers did not deal with the two ‘lads’ as one unit but as
different personalities, with one candidate noting how Yaqoob’s driving is ‘reckless,
yet precise’ and Iqbal is ‘shown to be more cautious when faced with chaos’. Some
candidates also demonstrated a subtle awareness of the juxtaposition of Eastern
and Western perspectives.

Question 5
This question provides the only assessment in the specification of AO3: Explore
links and connections between writers’ ideas and perspectives, as well as how
these are conveyed.

This question is the most demanding of those in Section A and, with 22 marks
distributed between 5 levels, carries almost half of the total marks available for
reading so it is extremely important that candidates allow time to plan carefully
and then aim to make a good range of relevant points.

Examiners recognise the challenge of the question and it was pleasing to note that
nearly all candidates achieved some degree of success. One examiner commented
that ‘all candidates who answered the question could describe a range of
similarities and differences between the texts’ and another said that some
responses in the top level were ‘truly impressive’. The majority of candidates
achieved a mark within level 3 or above but there were a few who did not attempt
the question and thereby missed the opportunity to gain a significant number of
marks.

At the lower end, candidates tended to make obvious comparisons for example
‘both extracts describe an unusual and dangerous sport’ and ‘one race takes place
in Pakistan and one in America’; often these responses became narrative,
sometimes with greater emphasis on one text. Candidates at this level were
generally able to draw links between the writers’ ideas and make some
straightforward comments about language and/or structure. Some candidates
copied out over-long quotations whilst a small minority used no supporting textual
references; these answers tended to be more list-like and often went little further
than mere identification. The more successful responses balanced their points,
confidently interweaving both texts with exemplification and exploration of ideas.
The most assured responses included astute analysis of language, tone and
purpose as well as content and there were insightful statements such as: ‘Both
texts express the chaos of an unfamiliar sport from a Western perspective
although they differ in tone: Text Two has a critical tone, discussing the danger and
idiocy of the race, while Text One offers admiration and appreciation for the
courage shown in the sport.’ The range of comparisons, depth of comment on
both ideas and perspectives and the use of appropriate references were all
discriminators.

There are different ways to approach this question but examiners noted that the
most successful responses made each point a valid and appropriate comparison
with supporting references from both extracts; this led to the balance required for
marks within levels 4 and 5.

Section B
Candidates are required to answer just one writing task but it carries half of the
total marks available for the paper and so they must ensure that they allow
sufficient time to plan and organise their response.
There are two assessment objectives for writing.
AO4: Communicate effectively and imaginatively, adapting form, tone and register
of writing for specific purposes and audiences. (27 marks spread over 5 levels)
AO5: Write clearly, using a range of vocabulary and sentence structures, with
appropriate paragraphing and accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation. (18
marks spread over 5 levels)

Question 6
It was interesting to note that in this series, responses were divided almost equally
between the questions.

The task for this question was to write a letter to a newspaper in response to an
article with the title ‘Competition in sports makes children unwilling to take part’.
One examiner reported that ‘All candidates appeared to have a clear opinion and
generally argued it well’ and another noted that ‘Whatever their ability, candidates
seemed to have something interesting and appropriate to write about.’ Some
agreed with the statement but many argued forcefully against it and referred to
their own personal experiences in responses that one examiner remarked were
‘surging with energy and enthusiasm’, as evidenced by the candidate who wrote
that ‘Competition is the sunlight that nurtures success’. Many candidates argued
that competitive sport was important for building life skills as an adult, including
being generous in victory and learning to cope with defeat.
At the lower end of achievement a few candidates did little more than deliver a
brief and unstructured ‘rant’. Spelling was often sound but errors in sentence
structure and syntax sometimes led to a lack of clarity and coherence.

Most candidates were confident with the formal letter format, adopted a suitable
and often authoritative, tone and employed a logical structure that explained their
views and experiences. Whilst there were still some candidates who wrote out
addresses of the sender and recipient, the majority recognised that it was only
necessary to have a salutation and a signing off at the end.

Question 7
This task instructed candidates to write a guide for teenagers about road safety. All
seemed able to come up with, at the least, a collection of reasons why the roads
were becoming more dangerous.

At the lower end some candidates struggled to present their advice in anything
more than a bullet-pointed list. Higher level responses adopted the tone and
layout of a guide with sub-headings, occasional use of bullet points and address to
the reader and also maintained a strong, precisely-focused sense of audience and
purpose. They also included a convincing range of modern risks to road safety
such as phones being a distraction and drivers listening to music through
earphones not being aware of sirens, horns etc that might alert them to dangers.
One candidate, offering guidance clearly targeted at a young reader wrote:
‘Seatbelts may not seem ‘cool’ and they might not ‘look cute in your selfie’ but they
are probably the most important safety feature in a car.’

Whilst most candidates seemed familiar with the requirements of the format, one
examiner noted that a number of candidates ‘got rather carried away with listing
things people should do to be safe and did not consider using persuasive features’.

Final comment on the writing questions:

To achieve the highest level in AO5, writing needs to be ‘perceptive’, ‘subtle’ and
‘sophisticated’ and for AO6 there needs to be accuracy but also a ‘strategic’ use of
an ‘extensive vocabulary’ and an assured and controlled use of a range of sentence
structures ‘to achieve particular effects’. Candidates should not avoid using an
ambitious vocabulary because they fear making spelling errors. Those who did
achieve higher level marks frequently opened their piece with an intriguing
question, a powerful statement or a short sentence and proceeded to explore and
develop their ideas with fluency, clarity and enthusiasm. Candidates are advised
that colloquialisms such as ‘gonna’ and ‘wanna’ should only be employed in direct
speech.

Examiners commented that where there was evidence of planning, this often led
to a clear and effective structure and greater textual cohesion and accuracy.
Concluding advice
Candidates should:
• be provided with plenty of opportunities to practise reading and responding to
unseen passages under timed conditions
• be aware of the different assessment objectives to ensure that they focus their
answers specifically on the different question requirements
• highlight the relevant lines for Questions 1-3 in the Extracts Booklet
• answer Question 2, as far as possible, in their own words
• use the number of marks available for Questions 2 and 3 to suggest how many
clear and discrete points they should make
• not spend time analysing language quoted in answers to Questions 1, 2 or 3
• underline or highlight the key words of Question 4 so that answers are
appropriately focused
• consider the effects of language and structure features within the context of
the given extract in Question 4 rather than offering generic explanations
• select appropriate references from the whole extract that fully support points
made in answer to Question 4
• make a range of comparative points in Question 5 and link elements such as
content, theme, tone, purpose, narrative voice, language; points should be
balanced across both texts and supported with relevant quotations or textual
references
• take time to make a brief plan for the higher tariff questions (5 and 6 or 7)
• consider given form and audience for the writing task and use these to inform
register and tone
• try to use a wide vocabulary and varied sentence structures
• aim for a structured, cohesive and complete piece of writing
• allow time to proof-read their writing response in order to achieve the highest
possible degree of accuracy
• read all instructions carefully
• attempt every question
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom