GCE TEACHER GUIDANCE English Language LG4 Guidance

GCE TEACHER GUIDANCE English Language LG4 Guidance Preparing for LG4 Analysing and Evaluating Language Modes and Contexts (synoptic) This document h...
Author: Brianne Foster
3 downloads 0 Views 5MB Size
GCE TEACHER GUIDANCE English Language LG4 Guidance

Preparing for LG4 Analysing and Evaluating Language Modes and Contexts (synoptic) This document has been compiled from material previously published in the Teacher Guide and material distributed at INSET. It includes candidate responses from ELang6 2009 (the legacy synoptic paper) which have been re-assessed using the new specification LG4 criteria. Be sure to make use of the still invaluable resources in the past paper library for ELang6 and their marking guidelines along with the new specification Specimen Assessment Materials. The legacy ELang6 2009 paper which we have used in this document can be obtained via the secure website; the paper code is 396

Preparation: Adapting legacy specification questions Below is Question 1 from the legacy specification paper ELang6 2009

Using some of the key features of the language frameworks you have studied, explore and analyse the spoken language of the texts. You should include in your answer some discussion of the following: • • • • •

how far these texts are typical of the talk show format, and what techniques the hosts use to get their guests to talk; comparisons and contrasts in the use of spoken English, both between the texts and between the speakers in each text; the tenor (degree of formality or informality); the degree of fluency of the speakers, and features that indicate that they are speaking spontaneously; the turn-taking, and elements of interaction between the speakers.

This could be revised for preparation for LG4 Section A as follows:

Drawing on your knowledge of the frameworks of language study, analyse, discuss and compare the spoken language of these texts as examples of talk shows. How far are these texts typical of the talk show format and what techniques do the hosts use to get their guests to talk?

Below is Question 2 from the legacy specification paper ELang6 2009 Analyse the use of language in the three texts. You should apply relevant frameworks that you have studied, including lexis, grammar, syntax, and semantics. Your answer should include some consideration of the following: • comparisons and/or contrasts between the texts; • uses of language that differ from present day Standard English; • their use of the letter form, and their approach to the person addressed; • views, opinions, attitudes, etc. that are expressed; • any other points that you find interesting in the use of language in the extracts.

This could be revised for preparation for LG4 Section B as follows:

Analyse and compare the use of language in these three texts as examples of letter writing from three different periods. In your answer you should consider their use of letter form and their approach to the person concerned.

LG4 Key Information Students are required to: • sustain informed critical judgements about concepts and issues raised through the study of language; • synthesise and reflect on linguistic knowledge and understanding drawn from different areas of their studies of English Language.

Section A tests a candidate’s ability to analyse, discuss and evaluate spoken language texts. Section B tests a candidate’s ability to analyse written texts. Some discussion and evaluation is also needed here. For this part, the texts will be grouped in some way, usually by theme or genre, and at least one will be from the past, but not earlier than the Early Modern (or possibly the very late Middle English) period.

LG4 Relevant Assessment objectives: AO1 Select and apply a range of linguistic methods, to communicate relevant knowledge using appropriate terminology and coherent, accurate written expression. There are three strands to this AO: • a range of linguistic methods • relevant knowledge and appropriate terminology • coherent, accurate writing. This AO is doubly weighted to reflect the importance of all three strands to the candidate’s whole response. Examiners will expect to see precise application of linguistic methods and appropriate terminology, with evidence that the candidate is able to synthesise and reflect on linguistic knowledge and understanding. The third strand allows examiners to assess QWC (quality of written communication). AO2 Demonstrate critical understanding of a range of concepts and issues related to the construction and analysis of meanings in spoken and written language, using knowledge of linguistic approaches. The first part of this AO requires A2 candidates to make informed critical judgements about concepts and issues. The second part of the AO requires A2 students to show deeper knowledge and understanding of how frameworks can be applied to the systematic study of meaning in language. AO3 Analyse and evaluate the influence of contextual factors on the production and reception of spoken and written language, showing knowledge of the key constituents of language. This AO places emphasis on the importance of evaluating mode and context, with Section B paying particular attention to language over time. It requires A2 students to show deeper knowledge and understanding of the influence of mode and context, including time and place, on meanings and forms of English.

To enable students to succeed on this paper, they need to: Section A • • • • • •

Discuss and explore the texts revealing an overview of the texts. Analyse closely displaying linguistic knowledge. Meet the requirement to Select and apply a range of linguistic methods, to communicate relevant knowledge using appropriate terminology and coherent, accurate written expression. Avoid writing too generally, and not looking closely enough at the actual language used; it is necessary to analyse the language of the texts presented, not just to display knowledge of spoken discourse. Show full awareness of the context. Be precise about the use of non-fluency features if appropriate; a common error in the past has been to fail to differentiate them clearly. While there is of course some over-lapping, and some features could be described in different ways, there are clear distinctions.

Section B • Approach this section by offering a straightforward textual analysis that shows understanding of the meaning of each text in its own right, and that also shows understanding and knowledge of features of language differences from different periods. Try not just to observe these features, but to describe them, and where possible explain them. • Have a really clear overview of the texts in their specific contexts. • Avoid producing an essay on language change. • Avoid merely making observational points on aspects such as spelling without analysing. • Be selective of the material chosen to discuss; it is impossible to comment on every aspect of each text in the time given but there will be a rich choice of features to discuss (again, selecting the methods of linguistic study will be vital here). • Make a wide range of points. • Make some comparisons between the texts. • Use terminology precisely and frequently. • Illustrate points clearly.

What might examination responses to LG4 look like? As there are similarities between the new LG4 paper and the legacy ELang 6 paper, the following Candidate responses to ELang6 Summer 2009 are offered as examples of possible LG4 responses accompanied by comments from the Principal Examiner for LG4.

Principal Examiner’s Comments on the ELang6 scripts which follow Candidate 1: Question 1 This is a Band 2 response. It shows some understanding, but is limited in scope and range. Some terminology is used, and some valid points made, but not a lot. Apart from wrongly using ‘slang’, there are few errors. This would probably be worth 16 out of 40 for LG4. Candidate 2: Question 1 There is sound overview of the texts, with sensible discussion. Some good points are made about concepts relating to discourse management and control, and there is sound use of terminology. Most points are effectively illustrated. There are a few minor faults in the writing, but, apart from referring to some non-fluency features as both false starts and repetition (incorrect on the first but correct on the second), the linguistic points are accurate. It is worth a mark at the bottom end of Band 4 – perhaps 32 out of 40 for LG4. Candidate 3: Question 2 At times this answer is purely observational, and several opportunities to make precise points are not seized. There are a few errors, such as seeing ‘nor’ as incorrect, and claiming that ‘begs’ is archaic, but there are some valid points too. Overall there is understanding and some attempt at discussion. There is some limited knowledge of language features in texts from the past. This answer would be perfectly acceptable had the question been set for LG4, as it is focused throughout on the texts, and is attempting to analyse them. This response is near the top of Band 2: perhaps worth 18 out of 40 on the LG4 scale. Candidate 4: Question 2 This answer was awarded full marks for ELang6, and would have been wholly acceptable as a response to an LG4 question. It is extremely well focused on the texts as letters, with meaning in their own right. Linguistic knowledge is full and accurate: terminology is used frequently to aid precision, but not just for its own sake. Historical knowledge is impressive, and differences in usage are well described and explained. The discussion is sophisticated, with excellent focus on the effect of language choices. There is a very strong comparative element, and the structure is unusual but effective: the three texts are compared three times, each time with a different focus. First the comparison focuses on the writers and addressees, secondly the focus is on opinions expressed, and especially those influenced by religion, and thirdly the focus is on literary and stylistic features. This answer would still deserve full marks for LG4.

Suggest Documents