Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

January 2020

Pearson Edexcel International GCSE

In English Language A (4EA1)
Paper 1: 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_01_2001_PEF
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2020
Principal Examiner’s Report for 4EA1 01 January 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 Survival at Sea by
Brett Archibald, in which the writer describes how, after falling overboard into the Indian Ocean, he
survived for 29 hours in the sea. The Anthology text was the extract from 127 Hours: Between a Rock
and a Hard Place in which Aron Ralston describes his experiences of a rock-climbing accident in a
canyon. 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 travel agent about a holiday that did not turn out as expected or an article for a magazine
entitled ‘Friendship is one of the greatest gifts in life.’ Candidates are advised to spend about 45
minutes on this section.

The paper was well received with examiners commenting on how the unseen text was accessible to
candidates of all abilities and provided ample material for the comparison question. It was clear
that 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 most of
them attempting every question but they should be reminded 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 the vast majority of candidates were able to select two apt
words or phrases that described the boat journey. There were a number of possible choices and all
were chosen quite evenly. The phrase ‘ten-hour journey’ was an option but ‘journey’ on its own
could not be accepted as it offered no further information to what was in the question.
The given line references for the question were 3-5 but a small number of candidates did not
achieve the full 2 marks because they selected words or phrases from outside these lines, most
commonly from the first 2 lines which they had perhaps anticipated would be the focus for the
question, for example ‘wonderful holiday’.

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 the writer is thinking and feeling in lines 16-
24. 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 clearly explaining the writer’s thoughts
and feelings about being lost at sea. Many considered how he felt ‘helplessness’, ‘confusion’ and
‘hysteria’ and how he believed he would be ‘rescued by his friends’. A few misread or
misinterpreted the early part of the section and thought that the writer was feeling fear/panic.
Candidates need to follow the instruction ‘In your own words’ and in this series examiners felt that
candidates had been 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 writer’s encounters with the sea creatures,
using lines 39-54. In question 3, candidates are told that they ‘may support’ their points ‘with brief
quotations’ and many did so to good effect. One examiner noted that ‘where candidates did not
score full marks it was often because they merely quoted without offering any description of the
writer’s encounters’. Some expected long quotations to act as a substitute for their own
understanding and commentary but answers including overlong quotations rarely gained full
marks. An examiner noted that candidates achieving full marks ‘were able to balance the weighting
of exemplification and their own description of the encounters’.

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 but examiners
noted that a small number of candidates spent 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 by looking at both the jellyfish and shark attacks. A few candidates did not achieve many
marks because they made only a couple of points or failed to focus on the question and offered
points that related to other parts of the text.

The best answers used a good balance of short quotation and explanation, 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, Aron Ralston, uses language and
structure in the extract from 127 Hours: Between a Rock and a Hard Place to convey the difficulties
that he faces. 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 nearly all
candidates.

Some candidates spent too long on an introduction that set out what they intended to do and a
conclusion that summed up what they had done, neither of which contributed usefully to the
acquisition of marks and time could have been spent more wisely by starting with an immediate
focus on the use of language or structure.

Examiners noted that most candidates had ‘been well-prepared for the exam and showed clear
prior knowledge of the extract’ and the majority achieved at least half marks but 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 that a number of candidates did not focus sufficiently on the
difficulties faced by the writer with a few who appeared to be reproducing points which they had
been taught but which had little connection to the question set in this paper. 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
pointing out that: ‘The writer uses a transition from active sentences to passive sentences. The use
of active verbs such as ‘I traverse’, ‘I press’ and ‘I kick’ implies that at this moment in time Ralston
feels in control as he is the subject of the sentence, however in the next paragraph it is ‘fear’ that
‘shoots’ his hands over his head.’

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 ‘most candidates
were able to offer some valid comparisons’ and another ‘was impressed with the quality of these
responses.’ The majority of candidates achieved at least a mark within level 3 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 a dangerous experience’ and ‘both men are in a difficult situation but one is in the sea and
one is in a canyon’’; 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: ‘Archibald says that ‘’time crawls by’’ which
would almost remind the reader of the slow movement of an infant or a snail and this is mirrored
in Text Two where Ralston describes how the time during his accident ‘’dilates’’; here Ralston
supports Archibald in the idea that time goes slowly when in a life-endangering situation.’ 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
This question proved to be slightly more popular but it was interesting to note that responses were
quite evenly divided between the questions. The task for Question 6 was to write a letter to a travel
agency about a holiday that did not turn out as expected.

Most chose to write a letter of complaint and issues ranged far and wide; candidates included
plenty of evidence to support their views which often contributed to sustained and effective pieces.
Whilst many opted for an angry tone, there were also some who injected a successful note of
humour and some original responses that talked about a holiday which turned out to be better
than anticipated including a top level candidate who wrote very engagingly about how his
expectations of being bored in Rome were transformed in the Colosseum where he learned ‘This
was a place of brutal battles, of terrible tragedy, of extreme emotion’. A large number of candidates
appeared to really enjoy this question and wrote letters full of conviction and passion that one
examiner remarked ‘were fun to read’.
Middle-achieving candidates tended to work methodically through the bullet points of the question
and did not consider using the range of rhetorical features which might help to make their piece
more engaging. Higher level responses demonstrated a skilful command of the language and often
focused on complex ideas such as sustainability and the changing expectations of travellers which
allowed them to reach the top levels of the mark scheme.

Most candidates were confident with the formal letter format, adopted a suitable tone and
employed a logical structure that explained their expectations, the reality of the holiday and often
concluded with some demand for recompense. 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 magazine article with the title ‘Friendship is one of the
greatest gifts in life’. Examiners felt that this topic was very accessible to candidates, the majority of
whom agreed with the statement.

Whilst at the lower levels, there was some evidence of ‘rambling’ or struggling to come up with a
range of ideas, with errors in sentence structure and syntax that sometimes led to a lack of clarity
and coherence, the most successful responses often tended to identify their target audience and
include a mix of personal anecdotes and more philosophical thoughts. Many candidates focused on
the positive nature of friendship and ‘how friends support you both physically and emotionally,
don’t judge you and are there when you need them’. Most also addressed the second bullet point
of what other things might be considered great gifts in life: these ranged from family and pets to
education and religious beliefs; some candidates also wrote about self-knowledge, health and
happiness being important.

One examiner stated that: ‘The best responses showed subtlety and maturity and a control of a
wide range of techniques which produced writing that connected strongly with what the candidates
assumed would be the reader’s experiences. They were often able to express complex ideas with
clarity whilst maintaining the genre of an article.’

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 colloqialisms 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