Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education

0500 First Language English (Oral Endorsement) March 2021

Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Comments on specific questions

Section A

Question 1

Imagine you are a pupil in a school which is considering introducing Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the
classroom.

Write a letter to your head teacher explaining why you would or would not want to see Artificial
Intelligence used in your school.
In your letter you should:
• evaluate the views about AI in the classroom in both texts
• explain, based on the texts, the extent that you feel Artificial Intelligence could affect school life.

Base your letter on what you have read in both texts, but be careful to use your own words.

Address both of the bullet points.

Write about 250 to 350 words.

Up to 15 marks are available for the content of your answer, and up to 25 marks for the quality of
your writing.

Examiners awarded high marks for Reading where there was some probing and evaluation of the ideas in
the reading material, rather than a straightforward listing and reproduction of the points in the texts. Where
the letter was also both accurate and ambitious in vocabulary and style, with a clear understanding of the
appropriate style and register for the specific task and audience, the highest marks for Writing could be
awarded. More effective responses here focused carefully on the arguments in the texts, with the highest
marks awarded for those which handled the different, often conflicting views with confidence and perceptive
evaluation. The extent to which the implicit ideas and opinions contained in the texts were probed and
scrutinised tended to determine the level of candidates’ achievement. These implicit ideas often involved the
quality of the relationship between teacher and pupil and how students depended on this human interaction
for success in their learning. The phrase in Text A that ‘teachers have superhuman levels of empathy,
resilience and organisation’, in particular, needed some probing and interpretation beyond paraphrasing or
the use of synonyms to show clear evaluation for Level 5 and 6. While most responses offered some
personal opinion about the benefits or pitfalls of using AI in the classroom, many reflected with only limited
evaluation the judgement of the writer of Text A that a ‘collaborative role’ or the use of AI as ‘a helping hand’
would be more appropriate.

The range and number of different ideas in the two texts required some organisation and selection for the
higher Levels in both Reading and Writing. Text B, especially, needed some overview of the main
advantages of using AI in schools to avoid simple replication of a list. More effective responses, for example,
used points made in Text B to amplify and interpret ideas in Text A. Similarly, some candidates saw Text B’s
assertion that customised learning, facilitated by AI, detracted from the classroom dynamic where students
could learn from each other as much as from their teachers.

While most candidates argued that AI could be useful in the classroom but had its limitations, some used the
material to argue that AI would expand and enrich students’ educational experience and was an opportunity
not to be missed. This was a point of view which could be supported by careful evaluation of some of the
ideas in both texts.

In responses given marks in Level 6 for Reading, examiners often rewarded some careful grasp of the
implications suggested by the texts. For example, some responses showed some effective challenge to the
idea that teachers were less well equipped to provide a varied, appropriate and wide-ranging education for
students than AI. Teachers could use their human skills as well as their years of training and experience to
intuitively interpret a student’s state of mind and could develop such trust over time that a student would
confide in them, obviating the need for cold statistics and data-mining.

© 2021
 Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education
0500 First Language English (Oral Endorsement) March 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Marks for reading

The most effective responses adopted a consistently evaluative, critical stance and read effectively between
the lines of the texts, drawing inferences and making judgements about the advantages and pitfalls involved
in using AI in schools.

Most responses included the reference in Text A to the uniquely human skills teachers possess and how
these could or could not be replicated, augmented or compensated for by AI. More thoughtful responses
considered carefully how essential human teachers were to a student’s progress and whether machines
would undermine or supplement their skills. In some effective responses, this idea elicited some sensible
consideration of the wider role teachers play in students’ lives as trusted guides in developing the moral and
social characters of their students. Some wrote about the assumption of a parental role by teachers in school
that outweighed their responsibilities as educators. Others argued that this implied trust between student and
teacher was not always consistent and some students would find it easier rather than more difficult to confide
in a machine.

Some healthy scepticism was shown about the ability of AI to create a classroom atmosphere conducive to
learning, suggesting that individualised learning may be lonely or isolating. Conversely, some saw virtual
learning environments as empowering, more entertaining and more conducive to developing personal
responsibility in students for their own progress.

Many responses included some comments about the usefulness of allowing AI to carry out more routine
activities, as suggested in both texts. While many judged this to be a way to free teachers to teach more
creatively or to preserve teachers’ energies so that they could teach more enthusiastically, others wrote
about how AI could eliminate bias in assessments or could ensure curriculum changes were quickly and
accurately adopted and reflected in students’ lessons. In some cases at the highest level, this probing
approach provided a useful route into Text B’s more straightforward, less nuanced summary of AI’s benefits.
Combining some of these points and considering their underlying implications sometimes produced a
sensitive commentary.

A fairly common approach in Level 5 and 6 responses was that AI could have its uses in education but that
its benefits could be overstated and much would be lost without human teachers. The high costs of adopting
AI could be offset by its smaller running costs but many were sceptical about computer systems that would
never make mistakes or malfunction. AI systems were considered to be only as good as their human
programmers by some candidates, picking up a point made in Text B that humans would have to ‘step in’ if
the machines encountered a problem’. In other responses, the collection of personal information by AI, even
if benevolent in intention, was considered highly problematic.

Responses given Level 6 marks for Reading showed a grasp of the underlying ideas and implicit views
shown in the texts. Most of these saw empathy and trust as essential to learning and could explore and
develop how these qualities contributed to school life. The most effective responses combined an evaluation
of ideas in both texts and arrived at a thoughtful overall judgement about the impact AI could have on both
the principles and practice of teaching. Responses awarded marks in Level 5 characteristically highlighted
this idea in some detail but may have accepted at face value most of the points made in the texts.

Where some comment or opinion was offered, mostly without specific reference to particular points in the
texts but generally relevant to the ideas in them, marks in Level 4 were usually awarded. These comments
usually focused on the qualities teachers possess and advocated using AI as an assistant in the classroom,
reflecting but not really probing the attitude of the writer in Text A.

Examiners usually awarded marks in Level 3 for Reading where there was adequate breadth of coverage of
the texts, and some selection of ideas from them, but without the more implicit meanings mentioned above or
with less scrutiny of the points made in the passages. Often, there was a clear paraphrase of both texts but
limited comment on the ideas in them. Where there were some brief opinions, usually at the end of the
response, they tended to be more general and not strongly anchored in the specific ideas in the texts.

Comments made at this level were given mostly in candidates’ own words. Less successful responses
tended to paraphrase and list ideas and many given marks in low Level 3 and below contained much copied
material. Copying of phrases was also very common, especially ‘empathy, resilience and organisation’ and
some misunderstanding of expressions such as AI can ‘augment the educational experience for learners with
disabilities’ was evident. Where a mark of 6 was awarded, some firmer links with the passages were needed,
whereas 5 was generally given for thin or mainly lifted responses in which there was some insecure grasp of
the ideas in the passage.

© 2021
 Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education
0500 First Language English (Oral Endorsement) March 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

Marks for Writing

25 marks were available for style and register, the structure of the answer and the technical accuracy of
spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Style and audience

Candidates needed to adopt an appropriate style and register for a formal letter to a familiar but authoritative
figure in their school lives. Most responses showed a clear understanding of this required register, even
where technical writing skills were weak, and this allowed for examiners to consider marks for Level 4 and
above where a ‘sometimes effective style’ was required. Although not always sustained, many letters began
with a suitable address and an introduction, many stating their purpose in writing the letter and their
credentials as students in the recipient’s school. Some effective responses used a more rhetorical style,
presenting their arguments in an engaging way but making their case effectively and with some impact, while
consistently adopting a respectful tone. This balance was quite subtly maintained at the highest level,
ensuring that sometimes strong opinions were given in a persuasive style but always pitched in formal
language and couched in expression which conveyed respect. Rhetorical questions or exclamations were
used judiciously at the highest level to engage the audience: ‘Can you imagine how enthusiastic and cheerful
pupils will be to come to school and learn with virtual reality machines?’

In the middle range of marks, examiners awarded marks in Level 4 even where more technical writing skills
were lacking if the style and register adopted were appropriate for the task and the audience. A clear,
consistent attempt to engage and persuade a figure in authority could sometimes compensate for other
elements of style such as weak spelling or insecure grammar. Conversely, some responses which were
generally accurate read like reports or summaries of the reading material rather than formal letters with a
specific audience. In these cases, while letters often began appropriately, valedictions were forgotten and
there was limited awareness of the style appropriate for a letter. Sometimes, a more colloquial, less formal
style and language crept into responses, which created a somewhat jarring tone for the task and audience.
Expressions such as ‘It’s gonna be a lot easier …’ and ‘the costs are humungous’ affected the overall
appropriateness of the register and sometimes imited the marks.

Level 3 marks were usually awarded where the reading material was largely reproduced so that the
organisation and sequence of sentences and paragraphs reflected the original and were not adapted to
create a coherent letter. Where the reading material was heavily lifted or copied, there was often little of the
candidate’s own style for examiners to reward.

Structure

Responses awarded high marks for Writing handled the material confidently and presented their arguments
cogently. The issues addressed were combined so that the judgements which emerged was clearly derived
from the ideas in the texts but the response was not dependent on them for its structure and sequence. At
the highest level, the lines of argument were set from the first paragraph and the issues in the two texts were
addressed but as a whole. The opening and concluding paragraphs of these effective responses tended to
introduce and sum up the main points, with the intervening sections arguing a coherent case. The argument
being pursued determined the sequence of ideas in these responses rather than the sequence of the original
texts.

Responses given Level 5 marks for Writing tended to reflect a range of points made in each text but were
reordered in a response which was sensibly structured and paragraphed. This often avoided the clashing of
contradictory points from each text or the repetition of similar ideas, such as the idea of tailoring learning to
individuals using AI which is mentioned in both texts. One sensible way at this level to combine the ideas in
both texts, for example, was to argue that while there were many routine tasks which AI could do, as
suggested in both texts, the assertion that AI ‘could function without a teacher present’ in Text B should be
mitigated by the empathy skills of human teachers mentioned in Text A. An overall coherence and structure
were required for this Level which was usually less evident in responses below Level 5.

Less effective responses sometimes struggled to provide a coherent argument and were more tied to the
sequencing of the texts. In most cases the information given in the texts was offered with some rewording
but not reordering of ideas. While some brief opinion was sometimes given at the end of the response, these

© 2021
 Cambridge International General Certificate of Secondary Education
0500 First Language English (Oral Endorsement) March 2021
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers

views were imposed on the structure of the original texts rather than argued for. The listed points in Text B,
in particular, needed to be grouped or selected rather than simply reproduced as a disconnected sequence.

Accuracy

Accomplished writing which was accurate and controlled as well as appropriate in tone and register was
given a writing mark in Level 6. These responses were not only authoritative in style and convincing in their
arguments but fluent and virtually free of error. There was a range of precisely selected and complex
vocabulary and sentence structures varied and were consciously used, often rhetorically, to engage the
reader.

Some complex sentences structures were chosen which helped to balance and weigh up contending views
and complex clauses were controlled by careful punctuation within sentences.

Level 5 responses were usually purposeful and clear, though perhaps not as ambitious and wide ranging in
vocabulary or as precise in register or style as those given higher marks. Level 4 responses, as described in
the marking guidelines, were ‘sometimes effective’ but not consistently so. Although the style was usually
fairly plain, the language used was apt and generally accurate. A range of quite basic errors was made at
this level which limited the effectiveness of the style but did not affect clarity of meaning. There were
occasional lapses in the use of definite and indefinite articles (usually omission) and some grammatical
misagreement, often between plurals and verb forms. Common spelling errors in this range included
‘artificial’ and ‘intelligence’ and other words used in the texts.

Faulty sentence structures, fluctuating tense use or too much lifted or copied material often kept writing
marks for Question 1 below Level 4. These responses often showed reasonable clarity in conveying
meaning but there was a wide range of quite basic punctuation and grammar errors which meant that
examiners could not award marks in Level 4. The omission of definite or indefinite articles was very common,
as were tense errors, and agreement errors were more frequent and more damaging to meaning at this level.
In rare cases, material from the texts was copied and responses where this occurred more substantially
could not be given marks in Band 4 for Writing or for Reading because neither the content or the style of the
response was the candidate’s own.

Ways in which this type of answer could be improved:

• be prepared to challenge the ideas in the reading texts

• look for ideas in the texts that you disagree with and explain why
• group ideas from both texts together and discuss them rather than repeat them
• think carefully about the kind of style which suits your task and the audience
• check your writing for basic punctuation errors, such as missing definite or indefinite articles,
weaknesses in grammar or misspellings of key words which are in the passage.

© 2021