Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

January 2019

Pearson Edexcel International GCSE

In English Language (4EB1)

Paper 01
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

Grade Boundaries

Grade boundaries for all papers can be found on the website at:
https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/support/support-topics/results-
certification/grade-boundaries.html

January 2019
Publications Code 4EB1_01_1901_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2019
Introduction
This is the second series of the new specification and centres and candidates on
the whole seem to have adapted well to the different Assessment Objectives and
mark distributions on the paper. Examiners commented was evidence of some
good teaching and learning in preparation for this examination in the responses
seen and examiners commented that many candidates seemed to be learning how
to respond to the tasks and were well prepared overall.

Examiners commented that the texts about reading were accessible across the full
range of abilities and generally candidates were able to engage with the texts and
tasks and respond appropriately.

Better candidates were able to engage fully with both texts and respond
thoughtfully and articulately. Their writing responses were often engaging and
effective and were well controlled and accurate. Weaker candidates sometimes
struggled to understand the passages and the questions. Their writing was often
pedestrian or lacked coherence and had weak language controls.

There were candidates who copied out all, or considerable chunks, of the extracts
in response to Question 8. This can never be a successful way to respond as the
candidate is required to produce their own work and show the ability to adapt the
original texts for a different audience and purpose.

Section A (Questions 1-7)

This consists of two short retrieval questions and a question on the writer’s use of
language and structure to create effects on each text and a question requiring
candidates to compare the two texts.

Question 1
Question on Text One which does not require candidates to use their own words.

Most candidates responded to this question successfully. The most popular

responses to identify one way the writer was biased were ‘he is an author’ or ‘he is
a reader’. Occasional incorrect responses mentioned ‘obviously and enormously’ or
‘I am biased’ which did not identify a way he is biased. Candidates must ensure
they read the text and the question carefully.

Question 2
Question on Text One which does not require candidates to use their own words.
Most candidates responded to this question successfully. The most popular
responses were ‘gives everyone an equal chance in life’, ‘helps people become
confident readers’ and ‘helps people become enthusiastic readers’ . Occasionally
candidates used references to other parts of the extract. Candidates must ensure
they read the question carefully.

Question 3
The question asks the candidate how the writer presents his ideas.
Responses to this question were on the whole encouraging. Examiners
commented that most candidates demonstrated at least some understanding of
the text and awareness of the devices used to present ideas.

Successful candidates explored the range of language techniques used by Neil

Gaiman, paying detailed attention to the effects achieved. Successful candidates
analysed Gaiman’s use of language such as listing, direct address, the use of
Einstein’s quotation and explained how they were persuasive.

Examiners commented that many candidates were able to identify language and
structure features, supporting them with relevant quotations from the text and
offering some explanation of how these features helped the writer to achieve his
effects.

There was also evidence of ‘feature spotting’ where candidates identify (correctly)
particular language features but do not explain them.

Less successful candidates produced responses that were content-based

without much focus on ‘how the writer presents his ideas’. These responses often
described what Gaiman said rather than commenting on his techniques. Some
examiners commented that they saw a number of these types of responses. Some
of the weakest responses were simply summaries of the text.

Centres need to remind candidates that this AO2 focused question asks how the
writer achieves effects.

Question 4
Question on Text Two which does not require candidates to use their own words.

Most candidates answered correctly with ‘sports’, ‘computer games’ and

‘friendships’. Occasionally candidates used material from outside the line
references. Candidates need to make sure they have read the question carefully.
Question 5
Question on Text Two which does not require candidates to use their own words.

The most popular responses were ‘school/homework’, ‘screens/smart phones’,

‘family’ and ‘friends/relationships’. Some candidates used the same bullet point
twice e.g. ‘friends/relationships’ and ‘hanging out’. Candidates need to make sure
they have read the question carefully.

Question 6
The question asks the candidate how the writer describes teenagers’ attitudes
towards reading. Some examiners commented that candidates coped slightly
better with this question than they did on Question 3, however other examiners
observed that candidates did not do as well on this question.

Most candidates were able to identify and explain some of the ways the writer
describes teenage attitudes towards reading and the language used to express this
although there was often a tendency to explain what the language meant rather
than how it was used for effect.

In successful responses candidates analysed the simile ‘like monks or druids’

together with exploring the use of positive and negative language, the use of
organisations and the first-person pronoun.

Less successful responses were often content-based and explained or summarised

the writer’s point of view or arguments, sometimes supported with evidence, but
not exploring the impact of the language on the reader.

There was also evidence of ‘feature spotting’ where candidates identify (correctly)
particular language features but do not explain them. Weaker candidates tended
to re-tell the events.

As with question 3, centres need to remind candidates that this AO2 focused
question asks how the writer achieves effects not what he says.

Question 7
This question requires candidates to compare how the writers convey their ideas
and perspectives. Examiners commented that the majority of candidates were able
to identify and discuss basic differences at a minimum, and some produced some
well-thought out comparisons of the extracts, however some examiners observed
that there were a number of responses which did not compare the texts.
Most candidates did make comparisons between the texts and write about both.
Some examiners commented that most candidates were able to select obvious
points and a compare these with some supporting textual references.
Better responses focused on comparison throughout and were able to make a
significant number of points. Some candidates were more sophisticated and did
provide a range of comparisons. They identified the pessimistic attitude of Text
Two and realised that both texts were persuasive in different ways. Some
candidates were able to provide apt references and link them to their points.
Overall candidates tended to focus less on language and more on viewpoint and
ideas.

Some less successful candidates wrote about each text separately with a very brief
comparison at the end. Weaker candidates often compared the content. They
sometimes focused on exploring one text in some detail and then simply added
some undeveloped points about the other text afterwards. The least successful
candidates wrote very little or wrote about one text and then wrote about the
other text, with no comparison at all. A small number of candidates responded as
if this question was the Question 10 from the legacy specification which meant that
they were not addressing the task.

Centres will need to continue to work with candidates to make sure they have a
clear understanding of valid ways of responding to texts. This should include how
to analyse how writers use language and structure to achieve their effects and how
to write comparative responses.

Section B (Question 8)
There was some evidence of good teaching and learning in the responses to this
section. There was some evidence of planning which was pleasing. The most useful
plans were relatively short but allowed candidates to focus and organise their
ideas effectively. Plans should be in the answer booklet rather than on an
additional sheet. Some examiners commented that candidates who planned their
responses seemed to respond in a more focused manner.

There were a good number of lively, well written responses to this task. Most
candidates understood the requirement of the task and were able to use the
appropriate register for a talk to peers. It was generally felt candidates engaged
with this task and some produced lively and convincing responses. The most
successful responses had a strong sense of audience and purpose and included
rhetorical language and humour to engage their audience. Many candidates were
able to adopt an appropriate register and there was clear evidence of an
understanding of the purpose, audience and format required although some
examiners commented that a number of candidates struggled adopt or maintain
an appropriate register.

AO1
Most candidates referred to the three bullet points and managed to cover a
reasonable number of points. However, although relevant points were selected,
they were not always developed and interpreted effectively enough. The final
bullet point (‘advice to help people read more’) was occasionally covered in much
less detail or depth.

The common reasons given for not reading were: addiction to technology, teenage
distractions, school; those given for the importance of reading were: it helps with
communication, can lead to academic success, the need at times to leave
technology behind and lose yourself in a different reality that is reading for
pleasure. They also wanted to promote the importance of reading for information.
The role of libraries and librarians also featured prominently in advice given to
help people read more as well and the increasing availability of ebooks.

Weaker candidates simply retold the texts. In weaker responses there was also
evidence of lifting from the original texts.

AO4
Examiners commented that most candidates were able to produce a successful
talk about reading using form, tone and register appropriately and effectively.
There was clear evidence of an understanding of the purpose, audience and
format required in many of the responses.

Most candidates produced a convincing talk. These often sounded like the spoken
voice. The tone was apt and often sympathetic and supportive.
They sometimes included humour and they related well to their intended
audience.

Better candidates produced lively and engaging responses fully focused on their
intended audience. These responses were full of practical comments, anecdotes
and an empathetic tone. They included rhetorical devices, short sentences, a
personal voice and impressive use of hyperbole and ellipsis.
Many candidates used quotations to support their rhetoric with a range of
interesting (and sometimes inaccurate) sources.
Some candidates only acknowledged the register at the beginning and ending of
their response, rather than maintaining it through the whole response. Weaker
candidates had problems sustaining the required register throughout their
response.

AO5
There were examples of successful responses with high levels of accuracy.
These candidates were adept at using a wide range of punctuation marks and
sentence types in order to draw attention to particular information or to clarify and
direct the reader.

Most responses were structured and organised reasonably effectively, although

only the more able could use structural and grammatical features effectively and
deliberately. There was some evidence of candidates attempting to use ambitious
vocabulary inappropriately. Spelling and punctuation were often correct and many
candidates tried hard to use a range of sentence structures and punctuation for
effect.

Some examiners commented that some candidates had problems with grammar,
despite good spelling and punctuation.

Centres should continue to work to ensure candidates have a clear idea of how to
adapt ideas from texts and how to write appropriately for different audiences and
purposes.

Section C (Question 9, 10 and 11)

Question 10 was the most popular question.

There was evidence of some good preparation and teaching in this section.
There was evidence of planning which is to be encouraged. However the use of
very long plans or draft essays is to be discouraged as they are not a good use of
time. Candidates should be encouraged to plan their response in the answer
booklet rather than on separate additional sheets. Examiners commented on how
much they enjoyed reading the responses in this section.

Question 9
AO4
Many examiners commented positively on candidates’ responses to this question.
However some examiners thought that some candidates struggled to develop and
sustain a response which suggests this was not a wise choice of question.
Almost all candidates who attempted it were able to make a range of points about
living life rather than reading about it with some success.
There were some strongly argued and engaging responses with competent writing
and some well-developed and well-expressed ideas.
The majority of candidates were clear about the discursive approach required by
this question. There was a good range of rhetoric present in the discussions and
the deliberate inclusion of techniques, such as questioning, listing and personal
pronouns.

A number of candidates explored the fact that reading and the imagination can be
more powerful than the reality of doing something for yourself. In other words you
can enjoy ‘seeing’ a tourist attraction for example through the eyes of someone
else and do not have to endure the negative aspects of that experience (wasted
time, expense, boredom of flight and travel delays etc). It can be an efficient way of
‘educating’ yourself and opening up new horizons without the pain. There were, of
course, candidates who wanted extreme experiences and felt that reading about
someone else doing something was tedious - you only really embraced jumping
out of a plane, for example, by actually doing it yourself and feeling that unique
experience. Weaker candidates offered points that were quite predictable and
found it difficult to sustain an argument, often leading to repetition.

Centres need to ensure that candidates who choose this option are well prepared
in argumentative, discursive and rhetorical techniques and are able to develop
their ideas effectively.

Question 10
AO4
Examiners commented positively on the quality of some of the responses to the
title ‘Friendship’.

There were many varied interpretations on the title. One examiner commented
that the stories were often uplifting and sometimes very sad.
Some of the narratives stories were full of pace and conflict and they were often
fast moving but sometimes they involved too much direct speech and the plot
stumbled rather than being properly executed. Sometimes it felt as if these
responses were not stories at all but genuine personal anecdotes or experiences
often successfully recounted. However one examiner commented that focusing on
recounting real-life, factual events which meant some candidates failed to show
the range and variety of ideas and approaches required to access the higher levels.
Some narratives were a little unrealistic in terms of how quickly lives turned
around because of a friendship.

Some candidates tried to cover rather ambitious time spans in their narrative –
one examiner commented on a time span of 35 years.
Some examiners commented that candidates had a semi-prepared story that they
were determined to adapt for whichever title they were given using some
tenuously linked opening or concluding paragraphs about friendship, which often
made it a disjointed story.

Weaker candidates struggled at times with clarity, with muddled storylines and
weak endings that were not closely related to the events that had unfolded.
Centres need to ensure candidates have a secure understanding of narrative
techniques and the ability to develop a coherent personal response.

Question 11
AO4
Candidates produced some well written responses that were fully focused on the
task of describing an experience that had made a positive difference. Better
responses were detailed and lively with fully developed ideas. There was some
excellent description with close attention to detail throughout.
The successful responses were able to detail how it had been a positive
experience, exploring the change in their thinking and showing the consequences
of that experience. These individuals had matured; they had re-assessed their
attitudes or behaviour and they often saw life from a different perspective. These
responses often focused on small incidents but they nevertheless had significant
positive effects on the recipient. This included a conversation with someone who
provided advice; watching the behaviour and actions of someone else and learning
from that experience; attending a function and realising that an activity you had
witnessed would be of interest to you. Most responses were clearly and
competently written, using some range of descriptive techniques and varied
vocabulary although some were rather predictable.

One examiner commented that it was uplifting to read the majority of these
responses. Weaker responses tended to be linear narratives that were often
repetitive in structure and lacking variety.

Centres need to ensure candidates are aware of the techniques they can use in
descriptive writing and also ensure candidates develop a varied vocabulary which
they can use appropriately.
AO5 Comments across Questions 9, 10 and 11
There was evidence of good spelling and reasonably accurate punctuation, but
most examiners commented on candidates who had problems with grammar and
expression. Some of this was unidiomatic English but there were also problems
with tenses and sentence structure including missing words. These problems
limited the effectiveness of the communication.

Whilst the majority of candidates were able to construct texts with grammar and
punctuation which was mostly accurate, less able candidates used very little variety
to create effects or emphasis. Examiners commented that sometimes sentence
structure was a weakness. There was some inappropriate use of advanced
vocabulary. Better responses had full control of spelling, punctuation and
grammar. Weaker candidates had poor language controls with problems with
grammatical structures as well as inconsistent spelling, punctuation and weak
paragraphing.

Centres need to focus on developing accurate and effective grammatical

structuring and idiomatic English to enable candidates to express themselves
clearly and access the higher mark bands.

Summary
Most successful candidates:

 read the texts with insight and engagement

 were able to explore language and structure and show how these are used
by writers to achieve effects (Questions 3 and 6)

 were able to select a wide range of comparisons and explore the writers’
ideas and perspectives (Question 7)

 were able to select and adapt relevant information for Question 8

 wrote clearly with a good sense of audience and purpose in an appropriate

register in response to Question 8

 engaged the reader with creative writing that was clearly expressed, well
developed and controlled (Questions 9, 10 and 11)

 used ambitious vocabulary

 wrote with accuracy in spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Least successful candidates:

 did not engage fully with the texts

 were not able to identify language and structure or made little comment on
how these are used by writers to achieve effects (Questions 3 and 6)

 were not able to compare the texts or offered very limited comparisons
(Question 7)

 sometimes narrated the texts in response to Questions 3, 6 and 7

 did not write in an appropriate register in response to Question 8

 were not able to select and adapt relevant information for Question 8

 sometimes copied from the original texts in response to Question 8

 were not able to sustain and develop ideas clearly in response to Section C
(Question 9, 10 and 11)

 did not demonstrate accuracy in spelling, punctuation and grammar.