1EN0 02 Pef 20190822-2

Examiners’ Report
June 2019
GCSE English Language 1EN0 02

Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications
Edexcel and BTEC qualifications come from 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.
Giving you insight to inform next steps
ResultsPlus is Pearson’s free online service giving instant and detailed analysis of your students’
exam results.
See students’ scores for every exam question.
Understand how your students’ performance compares with class and national averages.
Identify potential topics, skills and types of question where students may need to develop their
learning further.
For more information on ResultsPlus, or to log in, visit www.edexcel.com/resultsplus.

Your exams officer will be able to set up your ResultsPlus account in minutes via Edexcel Online.
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.
June 2019
Publications Code 1EN0_02_1906_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright

© Pearson Education Ltd 2019
2 GCSE English Language 1EN0 02

Introduction
This report will provide exemplification of candidates' work, together with tips and comments, for
Questions 1-9. This was the fifth examination of the specification in English Language 9-1 and the
third summer examination opportunity for candidates.
The qualification consists of three components:
Unit 1: Fiction and Imaginative Writing - 40% (examination)
Unit 2: Non-fiction and Transactional Writing - 60% (this examination)
Unit 3: Spoken Language Endorsement (non-examination assessment)
This report will focus on Unit 2: Non-fiction and Transactional Writing.
The paper is assessed through a 2 hour 5 minute examination. The total number of marks available
is 96. The reading and writing sections on this paper are linked by a theme.
This focus of this component is:
Section A – Reading
Study and analyse selections from a range of non-fiction texts.
This paper features two unseen non-fiction extracts, from 20th- and 21st-century texts. One of
these texts is literary non-fiction.The word count across the two extracts is approximately 1000
words. The minimum length of an extract will always be 300 words. The specification identifies that:
Text types studied should include a range of non-fiction forms, such as journalism (for example articles
and reviews), speeches, journals and reference book extracts. Text types should also include literary non-
fiction, such as selections from autobiography, letters, obituaries and travel writing.
The questions are on:
Text 1 (Questions 1 to 3) and Text 2 (Questions 4 to 6).
There are a mixture of short and extended response questions on the extracts.
Candidates’ ability to synthesise across two texts will be assessed in a separate question, 7a,
which will focus on similarities in the texts. The final question of this section, 7b, requires
candidates to compare the writers’ ideas and perspectives and how they are presented in the two
texts.
Section B – Transactional Writing
This section allows students to explore and develop transactional writing skills, for example letters,
articles, reports.
There are two writing tasks, linked by a theme to the reading extracts. Candidates pick one
question to respond to. It is possible for the same form (for example a letter, an article) to be
present on both tasks in the same paper but with a different focus and/or audience.
GCSE English Language 1EN0 02 3

For this series, the two tasks were to: write a letter applying for a job at a local guesthouse/hotel or
an article for a newspaper with the title ‘Making the Best of a Bad Situation'.
The Assessment Objectives for this paper are:
Section A: Reading
AO1:
Identify and interpret explicit and implicit information and ideas (Q1, Q4)
Select and synthesise evidence from different texts (Q7a)
AO2: Explain, comment on and analyse how writers use language and structure to achieve effects
and influence readers, using relevant subject terminology to support their views (Q2, Q3, Q5)
AO3: Compare writers’ ideas and perspectives, as well as how these are conveyed, across two or
more texts (Q7b)
AO4: Evaluate texts critically and support this with appropriate textual references (Q6)
This is the first series that assessed AO1 in the short-answer questions Question 2 and Question 5.
Section B: Writing
AO5:
Communicate clearly, effectively and imaginatively, selecting and adapting tone, style and
register for different forms, purposes and audiences (Q8 or Q9)
Organise information and ideas, using structural and grammatical features to support coherence
and cohesion of texts (Q8 or Q9)
AO6: Candidates must use a range of vocabulary and sentence structures for clarity, purpose and
effect, with accurate spelling and punctuation (Q8 or Q9)
General overview: It was clear that candidates were all able to respond to unseen 20th- and 21st-
century non-fiction in the examination. They were able to read substantial pieces of writing,
including whole and extended texts that make significant demands in terms of content, structure
and the quality of the language. Throughout the qualification, candidates had been prepared well
and all had, at different levels, developed the skills of interpretation, analysis and evaluation.
It was also clear that candidates used what they learned about different text types to feed into their
transactional writing. As the specification identifies: Students should use what they have learned about
different text types to feed into their transactional writing. They should be introduced to, and be given the
opportunity to practise, a range of non-fiction writing techniques and planning and proofreading skills.
Candidates had, pleasingly, been given the opportunity to practise a range of non-fiction writing
techniques and planning and proofreading skills.
The responses of candidates had some positive features.

Examiners were impressed by:
evidence that the majority of candidates had understood the content of and ideas in the texts
completion of the questions in the paper and coverage of all of the assessment objectives
the inclusion of judgements at different levels for AO4
the ability to make at least some meaningful comparisons for AO3
writing that showed a range of ideas and suitable tone, style and register for audience and
purpose.
Less successful responses:
showed an insecure grasp of language and structure with 'feature-spotting' or confusion of terms
had limited comment and relied heavily on description of ideas or events
had a lack of evaluation – in the sense of deciding on an opinion - for their AO4 responses
failed to support points using appropriate textual evidence
lacked focus on the question in Question 7 - a) and b) both ask a specific question, not just
similarities between the texts and ideas and perspectives broadly
lacked organisation in their writing
connected but did not develop ideas enough in their writing
lacked accurate spelling and secure control of punctuation.
It was clear that candidates had been able to understand the ideas in at least one of the texts, and
their own writing was often enthusiastic and had a clear sense of purpose and audience in the
voice and ideas used.
Overall, examiners were impressed with the performance of and range of responses from
candidates. It was clear that candidates had been able to understand the ideas in at least one of the
texts. It was also evident that their own writing was often enthusiastic and had a clear sense of
purpose and audience in the voice and ideas used.

Question 1
Candidates, in the main, achieved two marks in this question.
The questions are designed with ramping in mind and to encourage achievement and this question
showed the confidence of candidates in reading the lines given and finding the information.
This question requires understanding of AO1: 'identify and interpret'. The important advice for this
question is to read what is being asked for and select the correct information.
The few candidates who did not achieve any marks chose wrong lines, or (in a minimum of cases)
chose the wrong text or copied out the lines in full.
Some candidates misunderstood the meaning of 'virtually' in 'virtually indistinguishable'.
Two valid points are made.
There is no selection in this answer, as the lines are

copied out. Therefore no marks are achieved.

There must be some evidence of selection to
achieve marks.

Two marks are achieved, and there is also a valid
interpretation of 'clutch' which is not necessary.
A mark is given for 'large'. 'Virtually' on its own is

not enough for a mark as it modifies
'indistinguisable'.
The wrong text has been used and no marks can

be awarded.

Question 2
For the first time, this question now assesses AO1 rather than AO2, so performance cannot be
compared across series.
Candidates at this borderline grade were achieving, in the main, two marks in this question and
there were a range of responses to choose from, with white-haired widow and guy with a grasping
manner proving popular.
The questions are designed with ramping in mind and to encourage achievement, and this question
requires understanding of both parts of bullet 1 of AO1: 'identify and interpret'.
For this reason, answers that interpreted information from the lines, for example interpreting the
man with a cough as meaning a guy who is unhealthy or dirty, were acceptable. Again, where marks
were not awarded it tended to be where the wrong lines were used, the wrong text was referred to
or where the full lines had been written out.
There were few examples of only one mark being awarded.
Three points are made here which is more than is

required: 'White-haired', 'Widow' and 'Smokers'
which is an appropriate interpretation.

Four points are made for two marks.
There are two valid points. Spelling does not have

to be accurate in this question.
No selection of material evident.

There must be some selection of material evident
to achieve marks.
These quotations given are not about the people

who run guesthouses, and 'guy' on its own is not
sufficient selection to achieve a mark.
The first point achieves no marks as it is nothing to

do with people.
Two points are made in the second line: 'guy with a

g[r]asping manner, drooping fag'.

Examiners will always look at what can be
rewarded, even if there are two points in one line
in the answer booklet.

Question 3
The mark scheme for this question indicates that ‘The mark awarded cannot progress beyond the
top of Level 2 if only language OR structure has been considered.’ It was pleasing to see that, in the
main, responses had considered both language and structure and that candidates had been
encouraged to be aware of structural points.
Structure was a good discriminator in this question as candidates had been encouraged to look for
obvious structural points such as lists, sentence types and repetition. The more nuanced responses
were able to explore the unusual use of narrative style for travel writing. Explain is a mid-level skill,
comment a lower level skill and analyse a high-level skill, which gives candidates opportunities to
achieve across the range.
The minimal responses where language AND structure were not dealt with were a good
discriminator, as was the way the effects of language had been explained. Understanding of
terminology is not always a good discriminator as sometimes what the candidate identified as a
feature of structure was a language feature. The best answers were specific about how effects were
created, and the analysis was closely linked to the evidence used
Responses that were in Levels 1 and 2 tended to indicate that language and structure ‘is used to
engage and interest the reader’ which is a phrase used in the question and this did not allow them
to meet higher levels by looking at how both language and structure are used to achieve effects
and influence readers.
The best responses offered more detail and often focused on more subtle devices such as contrast,
humour and the concept of narrative. Stronger responses showed confident analysis of language
and structure, weaving this with how techniques interested and engaged the reader.
The best responses to this question think about the type of text the extract is from, and how this is
designed and created for the reader it is written for. This question discriminates well especially in
this paper, where reference to the whole extract is needed, as it is important to consider what
references the candidate wants to use and consider what examples are most significant for
comment. Discriminating references are seen where a candidate picks out specific examples across
the extract that link to their point, not just where they comment on every feature seen.

The candidate identifies an example of language
(personification) and structure (short sentence).
There is an attempt to offer brief comments on the
effect and undeveloped references are given in
support. It is better than ‘limited’ and therefore
moves into Level 2.

Examiners will always look to apply the mark
scheme which ‘best-fits’ your answer, however
short it appears.

There is comment on language e.g. ‘the
guesthouse is somewhat evil’ which draws on the
glossary provided in the extract for understanding
of the word ‘larcenous’.
The candidate recognises and comments on the

effect on the reader of the ‘grubbily matted
carpet…’ and the metaphor ‘fingers of icy wind’.
This response meets all Level 2 criteria and is

therefore awarded a mark of 6.

This is a confident, sustained exploration of the
text which begins to analyse the structure and
tone of the extract as a whole. There is some
precise analysis of language e.g. the grotesque
sensory imagery and structure, juxtaposition,
supported by extensive and appropriate use of
terminology.
This is a secure Level 5, which might have achieved

full marks if some points had been developed
more fully e.g. the comments on the metaphorical
use of ‘icy fingers’ in the closing paragraph.

This response improves as it progresses. The
candidate’s explanation of a range of language and
structure features (e.g. lexical field, sentence
length, lists, rhetorical questions) is clear and
securely meets Level 3 criteria.
The use of humour is identified in the final

paragraph ‘comic juxtaposition’ where the
response moves into exploration / analysis.
A mark of 11 in Level 4 was awarded as ‘best-fit’.

Question 4
Most candidates did achieve the mark here with dirty lavatory bowls and shower curtains with
handprints from former guests being the most popular response. Where a mark was not awarded,
this tended to be where the candidate used the wrong text.
One mark achieved with a succinct response.
One mark achieved.
This slightly longer response achieves a mark.

This does not achieve a mark as it does not
specifically link to a complaint.
This achieves a mark despite being a long

response where the quotation repeats what the
candidate has already said.
No mark is achieved as the candidate has used the

wrong text.

Question 5
As with Question 2, for the first time this question now assesses AO1 rather than AO2, so
performance cannot be compared across series.
Candidates, in the main, achieved the mark in this question and there were a range of responses to
choose from, with friendly and helpful and comfy beds and linens proving popular.
One mark achieved.
Although part of a quotation, this is a valid answer.
Longer responses are valid, but there is more than

is needed for one mark here.

One mark is achieved here. This is a valid
interpretation of the quotation about the
restaurant. Not all hotels have on-site restaurants.
Quotations and candidate's own words are

acceptable.
This is an acceptable answer - either 'friendly' or

'helpful' would also have achieved a mark.
This is a brief but accurate answer.

The mark is achieved here.
No marks are achieved as this is on the wrong text.
Ensure you are answering on the text that the

question is set on.

Question 6
Candidates in the mid-levels were commenting on and explaining ideas and events in the main,
with straightforward opinion at the beginning and end of the pieces, normally ‘successfully’, with
appropriate and relevant references.
The majority in the mid-levels were able to comment clearly and explain events and ideas, although
some attempted to comment on each one of ‘SITE’ where there was more to say on, for example,
theme and ideas. The level of evaluation at this borderline grade was straightforward: ‘The writer is
successful in showing opinions'.
Candidates at the higher levels were at least analysing and at best evaluating ideas, events and
theme. They were exploring and analysing ideas and events in the main, with well-informed and
critical judgement and appropriate, detailed and discriminating references. The majority were able
to analyse and evaluate events and ideas, theme and, in some cases, setting. The level of evaluation
was well-informed and developed, with varied levels of evaluative language used and focus on the
direction of the question, which was 'different opinions'.
At the lowest levels, candidates were at least describing and, at best, commenting. These
candidates were describing ideas in the main, with limited judgement and references. The majority
were able to describe, and some comment on, events and ideas. The level of evaluation at the
lowest levels was limited, with limited evaluative language used.
The mark scheme for this question indicates that ‘References to writer’s techniques should only be
credited at Level 2 and above if they support the critical judgement of the text.’ It was pleasing to
see that in the main responses had attempted to be evaluative, even just at the level of ‘successful’
or ‘effective’ and that candidates had been encouraged to use evaluative language.
There were responses that very successfully used language and structure (AO2) to underpin the
evaluation, but language and structure sometimes took over. The focus must be on ‘how well’ for
this AO4 question rather than ‘how’ – which is AO2.There were, however, fewer responses this
series using language and structure (AO2) to underpin the evaluation, and many candidates were
able to decide on an opinion about reassurance with confidence and the writer’s success,
explaining this clearly.
The quality of evaluative language was a good discriminator, as was the focus on the question.
Responses that were in Levels 1 and 2 tended to indicate that ‘the writer shows this successfully’,
which did not allow them to meet higher levels by evaluating texts critically, for example in terms of
the audience and purpose of the text and how it may be successful or not successful in different
ways.
Candidates should be encouraged to focus on what the question asks them to evaluate, not just
evaluating ‘the text’. The candidates at the highest levels often evaluated the writer’s attempt at
reassurance, perhaps being too focussed on negatives to be successful at showing different
opinions. This demonstrated more of a detached critical overview (Level 5).

Comment is made on ideas, events, themes and
settings. There are descriptive sections (which is
more Level 1) and straightforward opinion is given
such as ‘this illustrates that even after years…still
glad to be staying there…’.
References are valid but not developed.

The candidate begins by repeating the question
and describes a technique used.
There is a limited reference to the text and an

unclear assertion is made.
This fulfils all Level 1 criteria.

The candidate explains, but does not analyse the
events, themes and settings.
There is informed judgement in places such as

‘was almost like the writer was poaking [sic] fun at
the hotel’ and references are appropriate and
relevant.
Informed judgement is evident, but this is not

developed or well-informed. The response is at the
top of Level 3.

The candidate analyses ideas, events, themes or
settings.
There are well-informed judgements about how

different opinions are shown.
The final paragraph shows well-informed critical

judgement such as ‘Jacobs cleverly manipulates the
reader…and therefore a terrible experience.’
Other ideas are less clear, which keeps the

response at the top of Level 4.

Assured points are made which are supported by
apt and discriminating references such as ‘this is
contrasted with ‘the more vitriolic feedback’ as an
‘enraged guest’ describes…’.
The candidate uses the SITE approach to evaluate

the text. A detached critical overview is given such
as ‘the effect that this has on the reader is that
they will wonder whether some reviews are lying
or exaggerating…’. This is not fully sustained
throughout the whole response, however, which
keeps the response from achieving full marks.

Question 7
Question 7a
Most candidates were achieving at least Level 2 for this question. The questions are designed with
ramping in mind and to encourage achievement, and this question requires understanding of the
second bullet point of AO1: select and synthesise.
Candidates in the mid-levels were able to give at least two or three similarities, demonstrating clear
synthesis and valid evidence. Candidates at the highest levels were able to give a number of
similarities, demonstrating detailed synthesis and appropriate and relevant evidence. Even the
lowest level candidates were able to give at least one similarity, although with little synthesis or
evidence. This series, some candidates suffered from not reading the question properly. The
question is not about similarities between the texts, but similarities between places to stay.
This question requires understanding of the second bullet point of AO1: select and synthesise. In a
minority of cases candidates attempted to examine differences, and these differences were
credited in the answers to 7b (these were together to be marked in the online marking system).
Question 7b
It was pleasing to see that in almost all of the responses marked, candidates had compared the two
texts to achieve at least Level 2. Responses at the mid-level considered a range of comparisons
between the texts, with comment and explanation of writers’ ideas including theme, language
and/or structure. At this level the use of references was appropriate and relevant to the points
being made.
Responses at the lowest levels considered one or more obvious comparisons between the texts,
with comment on writers’ ideas. At this level, the use of references was limited. Even at this level,
there was an attempt to compare the texts. There were limited responses in this series at Level 4
and above for 7b.
The mark scheme for this question indicates that ‘Responses that are unbalanced will not be able to
access Level 3 or above, where explanation of writers’ ideas and perspectives is required alongside
a range of comparisons between texts.’
It was pleasing to see that almost all responses were able to compare texts, even at a basic level.
Responses at Level 2 considered one or more obvious comparisons between the texts, such as
both being about staying somewhere, one being one person's response and the other being
different people's views, with comment on writers’ ideas. The range of comparisons, level of
comment on both ideas and perspectives and the use of references was a discriminator.
The mid-level responses tended to focus more on perspectives as well as ideas, for example Text
One taking a more personal perspective than the article, and the audiences for the texts being
different which impacted on their use of language and style. Some candidates again here suffered
from lack of focus on the question. It is not ideas and perspectives broadly, it is about a specific
area, in this case staying in a guesthouse/hotel.

7a - This is a fully synthesised response which
covers both texts evenly and uses a range of
evidence to support. Detailed understanding is
evident throughout. This may be a response that
goes ‘above and beyond’.
7b – This is a confident answer with a sustained

focus on perspectives. The candidate focuses on
the viewpoint in the first paragraph of ‘an
intending customer looking for immediate
accommodation. Jacobs however writes about the
reviews…’.
The response goes on to analyse a range of ideas

which are clearly referenced from both texts – for
example, at the top of the second page where
several discriminating references are given to
support the point made at the start of the
paragraph.
There is a clear understanding of tone - ‘sardonic,

ironic and self-deprecating tone’ - and the way in
which this creates humorous detachment.
In the final paragraph, this is balanced with an

appreciation of the provenance of the second
piece: ‘a more factual account, albeit from an
overview of Trip Advisor’.
The response is succinct and focused throughout –

not a word is wasted!

7a - The candidate concisely synthesises the two
texts, showing a detailed understanding of
similarities: the lack of quality catering equipment,
poor quality carpets and the prices being
expensive in relation to the quality of
accommodation offered. Appropriate and relevant
evidence is selected to support.
7b – The response begins with a developed

comparison offering clear explanation of how
negative ideas are conveyed. Relevant support is
offered from both texts.
The second paragraph considers the perspective of

the writers and the final section focuses on
language techniques.
This response is ambitious in scope but does not

do enough to explore a wide range of ideas and
this stops it from moving into Level 4.
A mark at the top of Level 3 was agreed.

7a - The candidate identifies three similarities –
positive opinions, negative opinions and a sense of
disgust. Each one is supported with appropriate
evidence. Although the evidence is brief,
remember that this part of the question is
assessing AO1, which means that elaboration is
not required.
7b – The candidate begins with the perspectives of

the writers, identifying feelings about choosing
accommodation as a comparative point.
They go on to consider a wide range of

comparisons, supported by balanced references
from both texts.
The first and the third bullet of the mark scheme

are therefore reflective of Level 4 achievement.
The middle bullet is less secure – the ideas are
explained, rather than explored for most of the
answer, reflecting Level 3.
After much consideration, a ‘best-fit’ mark of 10, in

the middle of Level 4, was agreed.

7a – The candidate identifies three similarities
about the places – they are expensive, they show
‘bad opinions’ on curtains, and both have some
positive elements. Each point is supported with
relevant evidence, interpreting ‘one offered
satellite TV’ as a positive selling point. 6 marks.
7b – The response is very brief and does not really

answer the question, meaning that there is very
limited opportunity to award marks.
The candidate has focused on the introductions

rather than the extracts, but some brief
description is given, making it possible to award 1
mark.

7a – The candidate identifies three similarities –
positivity, luxurious lifestyle and disappointment –
and gives appropriate evidence for each one.
Although the focus is on the texts rather than the
places - ‘Both show people’s opinions’ – there is a
detailed synthesis.
7b – The candidate makes obvious comparisons

about negative perspectives and gives valid
references to support, but these are not
developed.
They comment on the writers’ ideas. The last point

is not supported and is quite general: ‘Both have
negative and positive feedback’.
Meets all bullets in Level 2, hence a mark of 5.

Section B
Question 8
The writing question is the final section of the paper. Candidates are advised to spend about 45
minutes on their writing and there are 40 marks available on both papers. Considered in the overall
% of the marks available on the papers, this is significant. Examiners are always impressed by
candidates’ writing, and by the development they are able to achieve in the time they have, their
individual style and level of thought and creativity.The first bullet point in the mark scheme is where
examiners go first. Has the candidate written appropriately for audience and purpose? Candidates
should consider who their audience is and what they are writing to do and for, in order to create a
voice that is appropriate, effective or sophisticated. What do they want to do with their writing? Do
they want to shock their reader? Advise and support them? Argue a case for something? Once they
are clear on this they can ensure they sustain this voice. A lively, excitable voice can be difficult to
sustain successfully throughout, and equally a straightforward tone which is essay-like and ends
with ‘In conclusion’ can be pedestrian and unsuccessful.
Even at the lowest levels candidates were able to offer a basic response. They always had
straightforward use of tone, style and register, with audience and purpose not always clear. At this
level candidates tended to express but not always connect ideas and information, with limited use
of structural and grammatical features and paragraphing.
The main areas that discriminated the writing responses were:
whether candidates could meet both parts of the first part of bullet one in the mark scheme for
AO5 – for example they often expressed ideas to achieve in Level 2, but these ideas lacked the
order for the second part of that bullet. In Level 3, they may have connected ideas but not
developed them.
the success of tone, style and register in AO5.
the spelling of basic vocabulary in AO6: homophones, double consonants, lower case
the accuracy of punctuation and use of varied punctuation in AO6: comma splicing, missing
apostrophes, missing capital letters at the beginning of sentences, random capital letters.
the use of a range of sentence structures for AO6
strategic use of vocabulary to achieve Level 5 in AO5 – this is seen where candidates really
consider their reader and their message in the choice of words.
Sentence structure was clearly an area centres had focussed on and one examiner noted that
candidates often varied their sentence structure more than they did their vocabulary: varying the
way sentences begin; more use of subordinate clauses to begin complex sentences; effective use of
one-word sentences and one-sentence paragraphs to demonstrate conscious crafting.
Examiners were impressed by the range and quality of responses. One examiner wrote:
'The writing tasks were hugely enjoyable to read. I loved the variety of ideas that students came up
with. Many students interacted with the extracts, which highlighted to me how engaging and
successful the choice of texts were. Some very successful students were manipulating whole-text
structure, which was very engaging. I also enjoyed reading the plethora of language techniques.'

As with previous series, some candidates attempted to use ambitious vocabulary while some
seemed to steer away from ambitious vocabulary in order to maintain accuracy. A key message to
centres is to focus on crafting and organisation whatever the nature of the task. Overall for AO6,
most candidates were able to write in a manner than was easy to comprehend. Better candidates
were fluent, used paragraphs well and had a good use of a range of vocabulary as well as
grammatical features and punctuation. Weaker responses had frequent errors, did not use
paragraphs and wrote in a manner which was hard to follow (consider the need to express and
order ideas at least). Better responses used a wide range of accurate ambitious vocabulary. They
were able to write using complex and simple sentences and had a range of paragraph structures,
used for effect, including the correct use of short paragraphs for impact.
Weaker responses did not use punctuation or paragraphs, used very simple, vocabulary and often
had many spelling errors of simple words. Common errors were frequent use of the small ‘I’ for the
personal pronoun, not using paragraphs. A lack of punctuation in sentences – no full stops, few
capital letters and a lack of commas around clauses. Basic spelling errors such as the wrong ‘to’,
‘their’, and words such as ‘receive’, ‘full’.
Most candidates understood how to tackle a letter of application and ‘sold themselves’ pretty well.
The apparent familiarity with the task and the guidance offered in the question meant that most
responses were logically structured, with clear, sometimes mechanical paragraphs (at the lower
end) and appropriate style and content.
There was a tendency to be fairly factual/informative in terms of content and style so it was the
candidates who responded well to the third bullet point who often accessed the higher levels.
There were many who could cook and clean, but some of the examples of keeping a cool head
under pressure (house fire/grandfather’s heart attack/power cut) ‘went the extra distance’ and
stood out. Similarly, those who moved beyond ‘I can…’, ‘I have….’,’ I will….’, into a wider range of
grammatical structures and rhetorical devices, achieved higher marks. In terms of what the
candidates could offer, some had different focal points such as: entertainment for guests; being
good with handiwork; it would help them gain better confidence skills; good at maths so could help
with accounts; cooking; cleaning; financial skills; customer service and childcare.
It was obvious that a letter of application was something that candidates are familiar with and most
knew how to impress prospective employers. Many candidates used the bullet points in the task to
structure and guide their responses and many produced believable letters showing that they clearly
understood what is required. Occasionally candidates did wander into giving too much detail on
how they could improve the establishment e.g. giving details of decorating and offering facilities
which were explored at great length which often detracted from the effectiveness of the letter.
However, many were extremely enthusiastic in their desire to work for the chosen establishment.

AO5: This is a rather brief response, expressing
and ordering straightforward ideas. There is some
awareness of audience and purpose, while the
tone tries for enthusiasm.
There is consistent clarity but little development.
AO6: Spelling is secure within the range of

vocabulary used, although this is not ambitious.
There are four single sentence paragraphs, each

ending with a full stop but this lack of variety
prevents the candidate from moving to the top of
Level 2.

AO5: This is a response which sustains a mature
and enthusiastic tone, style and register
throughout.
It shows sophistication in the shaping of material.
Although there may be occasional clumsiness of

expression, this does not detract from its
effectiveness.
The candidate is persuasive and convincing, e.g.

the bottom of page 7/ top of page 8, in the
management of complex ideas.

AO5: The opening paragraph is at the end of the
script as indicated by the asterisk after the
salutation.
It is a clear introduction, using an appropriate tone

and register, which suits purpose and audience.
The material is often persuasive e.g. ‘my
phenomenal people skills’, ‘our guests’, although
there is slight repetition.
Grammatical structures, including paragraphing,

make meaning clear, but are not sufficiently varied
to move to Level 4. However, all Level 3 criteria are
met for AO5.
AO6: The candidate uses a varied vocabulary, with

generally accurate spelling.
There are times when sentence structure is used

for deliberate effect, particularly where commas
demarcate subordinate clauses e.g. in the middle
of page 3.
This just lifts the response into Level 4.

AO5: This candidate meets all the criteria for Level
2 but moves into Level 3 through the selection and
development of ideas.
The tone is appropriately positive e.g. This

‘perfectly unique hotel’ and the register is suitable
e.g. ‘utterly disappointed’.
The letter has some focus on the importance of

the guest experience.
AO6: There is accurate spelling of some irregular

words: ‘disappointed’, ‘business’.
Punctuation is also generally accurate, although

not particularly varied, hence the mark of 8 rather
than 9.

Question 9
This produced such a variety of responses. Generally, candidates enjoyed the subject and had
plenty of material upon which to draw.
Some candidates were inspired by the extracts and considered hotels and holiday experiences.
Sometimes the negativity of the situation became so engrossing that the candidate forgot to advise
on how to deal with it. These responses tended more towards narrative. Quite a few candidates
wrote about how to avoid bad situations in the first place – not quite on task, but giving advice
nevertheless. Many wrote about exams, of course, and the advice centred, not surprisingly, on
revision, time management, extra lessons. Some wrote advisory articles that were mature and
sensitive in the way they dealt with quite serious subject matter, such as mental health. One
examiner noted:
‘Others adopted a less serious approach, with "When life gives you lemons, make some lemonade".
The situations were wide ranging, from "rodents to reprobates". The "rodents" turned out to be
pigeons, destroying "our town" and "leaving our pavements looking like a Jackson Pollock painting".
The "reprobates" were teenager in hoodies! ‘
Some climate change concerns were well handled. One wrote of a diesel car: ‘as it cruises down the
highway the ice caps are melting, raising sea levels…’ and gave detailed advice about emission
charges, environmentally safe forms of transport and generally how to save the world. At the other
extreme one candidate’s bad situation was having to plough a stony field. This candidate then went
into great technical detail about setting the tractor, sticking to the right pace and so on – a
convincing and unusual voice of experience! A number of candidates lost their focus on ‘Making the
most of a bad situation’ and ending up writing about bad situations and forgot to offer advice.
Some responses were too anecdotal and simply identified bad experiences that might occur.
There were some interesting points made in responses to this question, for example:
‘bad situations are like lasagne, layer upon layer’
‘hop off the Depress Express’
‘Doubts, distress, disappointments; I'm about to showcase the most efficient and satisfactory ways
of viewing bad situations positively.’
‘Bad situations are free lessons which mother nature has blessed us with.’
Most candidates were able to focus on the idea of deadline with a situation gone wrong or a bad
situation and write something appropriate.At times there was some creativity here in addressing
the question: one piece was written like a commentary on a football game and a few others
seemed to find it difficult to come to ideas to talk about. Positive marking allowed for this and there
were a number of responses that drew on their personal interests and experiences. There were
times advice given was a little off the wall – such as if you rip your skirt then just get your sewing kit
out and stitch it back up!
Some students responded in a transactional manner, focusing their article on a bad hotel stay. The
best responses were advisory and spoke about overcoming a “bad situation” with a mind-over-
matter attitude.
A fair few followed the pattern of identifying and defining bad situations, recognising the severity of
these may vary from waking up late or forgetting the pen to losing a member of a family, then

proceeding to give advice in how to handle this – a lot of deep breaths, staying calm and seeing the
positives, grounding techniques, some very mature. Handling the bad situations in recognising
what can be done and acting accordingly was impressive in a number of responses. Better
responses developed a range of ideas and solutions and did this in an appropriate style that could
have been used in a newspaper.
Examiners report mixed success of this question, but that it allowed for more use of rhetorical
devices and establishing a personal voice and allowed for complex ideas and subtlety in a few
responses.

AO5: This is a solid Level 4 response. The
candidate organises material for particular effect,
for example through the use of sub-headings and
bullet points which are used to structure the key
ideas.
With the phrase, ‘Finally, I failed maths’ - a touch of

humour is introduced here, employed effectively
to suit purpose and audience.
The tone is mostly effective, but does become a bit

essay-like in places which keeps it from the top of
Level 4. It is also slightly repetitive at times, again
keeping it from the top of Level 4 or into Level 5.
AO6: Fulfils all the Level 4 criteria: a selective

vocabulary - e.g. ‘negatively’, ‘to summarise’, - used
deliberately.
There are only occasional errors in the use of

spelling and punctuation. Sentences are managed
for deliberate effect - the use of short sentences at
the start of the bullet points, for example,
demonstrates control and allows the candidate to
then develop ideas cohesively.

AO5: This script shapes audience response with
subtlety and precision e.g. ‘One poor thought
swims through a sea of positivity and continues to
drag you under’.
It sustains a sophisticated tone, style and register

throughout e.g. ‘Take a (metaphorical) sword and
show it who’s in charge’ and is fully appropriate to
purpose and audience.
The use of the first person, ‘I understand the

frustrations…’ creates empathy with the reader
and is used discriminatingly for particular effect.
The candidate manipulates complex ideas

throughout, e.g. ‘As humans, fear has been key in
our survival’ and utilises a wide range of structural
and grammatical features to support coherence
and cohesion, e.g. the questions and summative
final line in the final paragraph.
AO6: The candidate uses an extensive vocabulary

strategically: ‘vent’, ‘dilemma’, ‘compatible’, with
very rare spelling errors.
Punctuation is employed accurately to aid

emphasis and precision e.g. ‘…there are many
other ideas to try: vent to a pet; write down all of
your frustrations…’.
Particular effects are achieved, for example the use

of imperatives: ‘Choose to change the way you
view the world’.

AO5: A short response that begins to show some
awareness of audience and purpose, for example
the use of two questions in the first paragraph to
engage the reader.
The candidate has focused on a specific, personal

situation but this is relevant to the task and there
is a straightforward use of tone, style and register:
‘I would as long as there is entertainment’ and this
awareness lifts it into Level 2.
The candidate has made good use of the extracts

as a springboard for their own writing. It cannot go
higher in the Level due to lack of development /
brevity.
AO6: Just enough evidence of a range of correctly

spelt vocabulary e.g. ‘conditions’, ‘terrible’,
‘entertainment’.
Capital letters are used correctly at the beginning

of sentences, but there is some inaccurate usage
within paragraphs, ‘Pool’, ‘Drinks’.
Some range of sentences is evident - for example,

the two rhetorical questions in paragraph 1 and
the use of commas in the list in paragraph 2.

Paper Summary
Based on their performance on the paper, candidates are offered the following advice:
For short-answer Questions 1,2,4 and 5 ensure that you are responding briefly and selecting
information, not just writing out a section. Highlight the relevant lines in your extract booklet and
read the question carefully.
For Question 3, it can be tempting to look out for the usual features of language (alliteration,
personification, simile, metaphor) and structure (lists, repetition, short sentences, questions).
These can be commented on well. The best responses, however, think about the type of text the
extract is from, and how this is designed and created for the reader it is written for.
In Questions 3 and 6, where reference to the whole extract is needed, it is important to consider
what references you will use and consider what examples are most significant for comment.
Discriminating references are seen where you pick out specific examples across the extract that
link to your points, not just where you comment on every feature seen.
For your evaluations, remember that you evaluate every day, and more so than ever with online
feedback and posting of opinions and ideas online. Read the question carefully – what is it you
are giving your opinion on? What do you think about whether the writer shows different
opinions? What would the opinions of others be? You do not need to comment on language and
structure here unless this supports your evaluation. For example, you can think about the
audience and purpose of the text and whether it would be successful for readers or not.
For question 7a always comment on similarities. You can comment on differences in 7b. There
are only 6 marks for 7a, so be brief and succinct here.
In 7b, link comparisons back to the ideas of the writers and their perspectives on something
specific, i.e. staying in a guesthouse/hotel.
When you are writing, always think about your reader, what you want them to understand and
how you want them to react at different parts of your writing; then choose the best words,
phrases or techniques available to you to achieve those effects.
Plan your writing, even just briefly. Think carefully about how you will begin to write so that it is
engaging for your reader from the very start. As you begin to write, know where you will end. This
will help you to write in a manner that is cohesive and coherent for your reader.
Take care throughout with accuracy: spelling, punctuation and grammar.
Focus on timing during the examination and use the number of marks available for each
question as an indication of how long you should spend answering each question.

Grade Boundaries
Grade boundaries for this, and all other papers, can be found on the website on this link:
http://www.edexcel.com/iwantto/Pages/grade-boundaries.aspx

Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1EN0 02 Pef 20190822-2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1EN0 02 Pef 20190822-2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1EN0 02 Pef 20190822-2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examiners’ Report

GCSE English Language 1EN0 02

Giving you insight to inform next steps

See students’ scores for every exam question.

For more information on ResultsPlus, or to log in, visit www.edexcel.com/resultsplus.

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

All the material in this publication is copyright

2 GCSE English Language 1EN0 02

The qualification consists of three components:

Unit 1: Fiction and Imaginative Writing - 40% (examination)

Unit 2: Non-fiction and Transactional Writing - 60% (this examination)

Unit 3: Spoken Language Endorsement (non-examination assessment)

This report will focus on Unit 2: Non-fiction and Transactional Writing.

This focus of this component is:

Study and analyse selections from a range of non-fiction texts.

The questions are on:

Text 1 (Questions 1 to 3) and Text 2 (Questions 4 to 6).

Section B – Transactional Writing

GCSE English Language 1EN0 02 3

The Assessment Objectives for this paper are:

Select and synthesise evidence from different texts (Q7a)

The responses of candidates had some positive features.

4 GCSE English Language 1EN0 02

the inclusion of judgements at different levels for AO4

the ability to make at least some meaningful comparisons for AO3

Less successful responses:

had limited comment and relied heavily on description of ideas or events

failed to support points using appropriate textual evidence

lacked organisation in their writing

connected but did not develop ideas enough in their writing

lacked accurate spelling and secure control of punctuation.

GCSE English Language 1EN0 02 5

Some candidates misunderstood the meaning of 'virtually' in 'virtually indistinguishable'.

Two valid points are made.

There is no selection in this answer, as the lines are

6 GCSE English Language 1EN0 02

Two valid points are made.

Two valid points are made.

GCSE English Language 1EN0 02 7

A mark is given for 'large'. 'Virtually' on its own is

The wrong text has been used and no marks can

8 GCSE English Language 1EN0 02

There were few examples of only one mark being awarded.

Three points are made here which is more than is

GCSE English Language 1EN0 02 9

There are two valid points. Spelling does not have

No selection of material evident.

10 GCSE English Language 1EN0 02

These quotations given are not about the people

The first point achieves no marks as it is nothing to

Two points are made in the second line: 'guy with a

GCSE English Language 1EN0 02 11

12 GCSE English Language 1EN0 02

GCSE English Language 1EN0 02 13

14 GCSE English Language 1EN0 02

GCSE English Language 1EN0 02 15

The candidate recognises and comments on the

This response meets all Level 2 criteria and is

GCSE English Language 1EN0 02 17