The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Can you mark this question out of 16 marks from GCSE English Language paper 2?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Muttley79
Please stop - this is not what this website is for.

This is just my first time using this website so I'm not used to the atmosphere or anything :smile::smile:
Original post by Dinda Academy
Yeah congratulations for that A**. But can you mark my letter out of 40 marks as I spent time and effort in producing this quality work :smile::smile:. It's on English Language Paper 2 Question 5. Its the last question in paper 2.

I can only give you advice but i am not an examiner/marker so I wouldn't be able to give you a distinct "Oh that's a X/40" english is also very subjective due to the vague mark schemes so someone more qualified is the best option!
Original post by astayuno
I can only give you advice but i am not an examiner/marker so I wouldn't be able to give you a distinct "Oh that's a X/40" english is also very subjective due to the vague mark schemes so someone more qualified is the best option!

Ok thanks for the information :smile::wink:
Original post by Dinda Academy
This is just my first time using this website so I'm not used to the atmosphere or anything :smile::smile:

There are a few teachers on here but I don;t think anyone who teaches English. Just send it to your teacher - they are best places to give an accurate mark and points for improvement :smile:
Original post by Muttley79
There are a few teachers on here but I don;t think anyone who teaches English. Just send it to your teacher - they are best places to give an accurate mark and points for improvement :smile:

Ok thanks :smile:. My English teacher will check it and I'm about to go into year 11 next year so I'm preparing :smile::smile:.
Original post by Dinda Academy
Thanks ByEeek :smile::smile:. But what mark would it be between 13 and 16 as there are 4 possibilities:smile::smile:


Alas, I don't know. Do you have the mark scheme? English is one of those rather vague subjects.
Original post by ByEeek
Alas, I don't know. Do you have the mark scheme? English is one of those rather vague subjects.

Yes I can show it to you :smile:
Original post by ByEeek
Alas, I don't know. Do you have the mark scheme? English is one of those rather vague subjects.

Wait here :smile::smile::smile:
Original post by ByEeek
Alas, I don't know. Do you have the mark scheme? English is one of those rather vague subjects.

I found it :smile::smile:. Click on this link down below and it will show you the mark scheme straightaway.
https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/sample-papers-and-mark-schemes/2018/november/AQA-87002-W-MS-NOV18.PDF
Original post by Dinda Academy
Yes I can show it to you :smile:


Well what mark do you think you got? Teachers don't have any more skill than you in marking stuff.
Original post by ByEeek
Well what mark do you think you got? Teachers don't have any more skill than you in marking stuff.

I think I got 15 marks maximum :smile::smile::smile:
Original post by Dinda Academy
I think I got 15 marks maximum :smile::smile::smile:

Well done! What do you think you need to do to get full marks?
I am an English teacher. While it is great that you are completing work, marking a complete response to this question is time consuming – if the marker is unfamiliar with this paper (as I am), then you are not only asking them to mark your work (giving you feedback and a mark), you are asking them to read and understand two sources. In addition, you are going to learn more from feedback than you will from a specific mark.

•

Firstly, your written expression needs work. Your points are unclear, as is your meaning. There is no way you can achieve level 3 / 4 with this lack of clarity. L3, ‘clear, relevant’, means that you can compare the sources in obvious ways – to do this, you need to express yourself in a clear way.

•

Your point needs more detail – what experiences do they face? What perspective do they share?

•

Where is your evidence for Source B in your first paragraph? You need to compare, meaning you need words like ‘similarly’ within the paragraph and throughout your response.

•

Where is evidence of Walker’s humour? You don’t discuss this, despite mentioning that this is their viewpoint.

•

You need more references to techniques and their effect.

•

You need to sustain your comparison throughout (A+B / A+B) What is your comparative point in the second paragraph? Where is your reference to writers’ perspectives?

•

Clearly indicate the source that evidence is taken from.

•

How are the quotations in your second paragraph juxtaposed? What is inhuman about ‘unprotected flesh and bone’?

Optimistically, I would put this somewhere around 9 marks. I didn’t understand a lot of it and your essay structure needs work.

You have linked the mark scheme. Have a look at the indicative content for an idea of how to structure your answers. I've copied the L3 paragraph below and added comments:

In Source A, Walker believes that car drivers make cycling more dangerous than it should be (clear reference to source; clear reference to writer's viewpoint). He addresses the drivers directly (technique): ‘remember that these are human beings’ (relevant evidence - there is room here to zoom in on the effect of specific words; effect isn't really expanded upon here) and uses emotive words (technique) such as ‘flesh and bone’ (relevant evidence) to persuade readers to understand that cyclists are real people who can get hurt (comment on effect). There is a similar (comparative word) perspective in Source B that the cyclist is ‘prey’ (short, relevant evidence) to the Victorian cab drivers, but whereas (comparative word - develops ideas by considering differences as well as similarities) Walker uses a serious tone, the writer in Source B uses a humorous tone (technique) by stating that her life would be ‘nicer’ (relevant evidence) if they didn’t try to kill her. The effect of using humour (analysis could be developed here e.g. the comparative adjective 'nicer' is sarcastic in tone - that her life would be improved by feeling secure on the road should be obvious. It suggests that her life, which is under threat by cab drivers, is nice already which obviously isn't the case) is that the writer comes across as more confident (this is a little unclear - more confident in what way? More able to deal with the threat of drivers? Her arguably blase attitude is more dismissive of the risks than the writer's attitude in the other source?) than Walker because she makes a joke out of the dangers of cycling in traffic.
Original post by Englishteacher24
I am an English teacher. While it is great that you are completing work, marking a complete response to this question is time consuming – if the marker is unfamiliar with this paper (as I am), then you are not only asking them to mark your work (giving you feedback and a mark), you are asking them to read and understand two sources. In addition, you are going to learn more from feedback than you will from a specific mark.

•

Firstly, your written expression needs work. Your points are unclear, as is your meaning. There is no way you can achieve level 3 / 4 with this lack of clarity. L3, ‘clear, relevant’, means that you can compare the sources in obvious ways – to do this, you need to express yourself in a clear way.

•

Your point needs more detail – what experiences do they face? What perspective do they share?

•

Where is your evidence for Source B in your first paragraph? You need to compare, meaning you need words like ‘similarly’ within the paragraph and throughout your response.

•

Where is evidence of Walker’s humour? You don’t discuss this, despite mentioning that this is their viewpoint.

•

You need more references to techniques and their effect.

•

You need to sustain your comparison throughout (A+B / A+B) What is your comparative point in the second paragraph? Where is your reference to writers’ perspectives?

•

Clearly indicate the source that evidence is taken from.

•

How are the quotations in your second paragraph juxtaposed? What is inhuman about ‘unprotected flesh and bone’?

Optimistically, I would put this somewhere around 9 marks. I didn’t understand a lot of it and your essay structure needs work.

You have linked the mark scheme. Have a look at the indicative content for an idea of how to structure your answers. I've copied the L3 paragraph below and added comments:

In Source A, Walker believes that car drivers make cycling more dangerous than it should be (clear reference to source; clear reference to writer's viewpoint). He addresses the drivers directly (technique): ‘remember that these are human beings’ (relevant evidence - there is room here to zoom in on the effect of specific words; effect isn't really expanded upon here) and uses emotive words (technique) such as ‘flesh and bone’ (relevant evidence) to persuade readers to understand that cyclists are real people who can get hurt (comment on effect). There is a similar (comparative word) perspective in Source B that the cyclist is ‘prey’ (short, relevant evidence) to the Victorian cab drivers, but whereas (comparative word - develops ideas by considering differences as well as similarities) Walker uses a serious tone, the writer in Source B uses a humorous tone (technique) by stating that her life would be ‘nicer’ (relevant evidence) if they didn’t try to kill her. The effect of using humour (analysis could be developed here e.g. the comparative adjective 'nicer' is sarcastic in tone - that her life would be improved by feeling secure on the road should be obvious. It suggests that her life, which is under threat by cab drivers, is nice already which obviously isn't the case) is that the writer comes across as more confident (this is a little unclear - more confident in what way? More able to deal with the threat of drivers? Her arguably blase attitude is more dismissive of the risks than the writer's attitude in the other source?) than Walker because she makes a joke out of the dangers of cycling in traffic.

Thanks
Original post by Englishteacher24
I am an English teacher. While it is great that you are completing work, marking a complete response to this question is time consuming – if the marker is unfamiliar with this paper (as I am), then you are not only asking them to mark your work (giving you feedback and a mark), you are asking them to read and understand two sources. In addition, you are going to learn more from feedback than you will from a specific mark.

•

Firstly, your written expression needs work. Your points are unclear, as is your meaning. There is no way you can achieve level 3 / 4 with this lack of clarity. L3, ‘clear, relevant’, means that you can compare the sources in obvious ways – to do this, you need to express yourself in a clear way.

•

Your point needs more detail – what experiences do they face? What perspective do they share?

•

Where is your evidence for Source B in your first paragraph? You need to compare, meaning you need words like ‘similarly’ within the paragraph and throughout your response.

•

Where is evidence of Walker’s humour? You don’t discuss this, despite mentioning that this is their viewpoint.

•

You need more references to techniques and their effect.

•

You need to sustain your comparison throughout (A+B / A+B) What is your comparative point in the second paragraph? Where is your reference to writers’ perspectives?

•

Clearly indicate the source that evidence is taken from.

•

How are the quotations in your second paragraph juxtaposed? What is inhuman about ‘unprotected flesh and bone’?

Optimistically, I would put this somewhere around 9 marks. I didn’t understand a lot of it and your essay structure needs work.

You have linked the mark scheme. Have a look at the indicative content for an idea of how to structure your answers. I've copied the L3 paragraph below and added comments:

In Source A, Walker believes that car drivers make cycling more dangerous than it should be (clear reference to source; clear reference to writer's viewpoint). He addresses the drivers directly (technique): ‘remember that these are human beings’ (relevant evidence - there is room here to zoom in on the effect of specific words; effect isn't really expanded upon here) and uses emotive words (technique) such as ‘flesh and bone’ (relevant evidence) to persuade readers to understand that cyclists are real people who can get hurt (comment on effect). There is a similar (comparative word) perspective in Source B that the cyclist is ‘prey’ (short, relevant evidence) to the Victorian cab drivers, but whereas (comparative word - develops ideas by considering differences as well as similarities) Walker uses a serious tone, the writer in Source B uses a humorous tone (technique) by stating that her life would be ‘nicer’ (relevant evidence) if they didn’t try to kill her. The effect of using humour (analysis could be developed here e.g. the comparative adjective 'nicer' is sarcastic in tone - that her life would be improved by feeling secure on the road should be obvious. It suggests that her life, which is under threat by cab drivers, is nice already which obviously isn't the case) is that the writer comes across as more confident (this is a little unclear - more confident in what way? More able to deal with the threat of drivers? Her arguably blase attitude is more dismissive of the risks than the writer's attitude in the other source?) than Walker because she makes a joke out of the dangers of cycling in traffic.

Great paragraph but your a different English teacher and English is a subject which lots of teachers have different perspectives of someones work so they might mark it differently according to what they think about it :smile:
Original post by Dinda Academy
Great paragraph but your a different English teacher and English is a subject which lots of teachers have different perspectives of someones work so they might mark it differently according to what they think about it :smile:

English work is subjective to an extent. Despite the mark scheme being relatively vague, there are clear expectations to meet each level. If your work is not clear - as in the indicative content provided by the exam board - you will not get L3. My feedback illustrates where you have not met the mark scheme. It is vary rare for marks to vary so wildly between teachers that someone would say your work is at the top of L4 and someone else would say it is at the bottom of L3.

I have spent time marking this as an English teacher with experience. Fair enough if you want to wait for other opinions, but your comments seem a little dismissive of the time and effort it took to give you the feedback, because it isn't the feedback you wanted to receive.
(edited 3 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you