Englsih language investigation

AQA Education (AQA) is a registered charity (number 1073334) and a company limited by guarantee registered in
England and Wales (number 3644723). Our registered address is AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX.
Teacher Standardising 2014
Delegate Booklet
A-level English Language (Specification B)
Unit 4: Investigating Language (ENGB4)

Contents Page
Tasks, Marks and Weightings 3
Coursework Assessment Criteria – Language Investigation 4
Coursework Assessment Criteria – Media Text 5
Report on Examination (June 2013) 7
Candidate Record Forms 2014 15
Folder 1 17
Folder 2 43
Folder 3 66
Folder 4 80
Contact Points for A Level English Language B 92

GCE English Language B Specification for AS exams 2009 onwards and A2 exams 2010 onwards (version 1.1)
Coursework Assessment Criteria Unit 4 – Language Investigation
• Maximum total marks for AO1 – 20 marks
• Maximum total for language investigation – 50 marks
Mark AO1
Select and apply a range
of linguistic methods, to
communicate relevant
knowledge using
appropriate terminology
and coherent, accurate
written expression.
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.
Mark AO3
Analyse and evaluate the
influence of contextual
factors on the production
and reception of spoken
showing knowledge of
the key constituents of
language.
17-20 • Accurate and perceptive
linguistic knowledge.
• Systematic and
evaluative exploration
of data selecting
appropriate linguistic
methods – suitably
tentative conclusions
drawn.
• Clear, perceptive
understanding of a
judicious range of
concepts and ideas.
• Conceptualised
discussion which
illuminates data.
• Insightful methodology
employed.
9-10 • Perceptive and insightful
exploration of contextual
factors.
• Analytical and
systematic interpretation
of context in the light of
language features.
13-16 • Appropriate and
generally accurate
linguistic knowledge.
• Uses linguistic methods
in a systematic way
– some evaluative
comment though not
consistent.
• Sound understanding
of a range of language
concepts and issues
surrounding the data.
• Developed discussion
of ideas showing
some conceptualised
knowledge.
• Appropriate
methodology applied
with some insight.
7-8 • Clear and sometimes
perceptive consideration
of contextual issues/
pressures.
• Sound, occasionally
sensitive analysis and
engagement with
context in the light of
language features.
9-12 • Some linguistic
knowledge and
awareness.
• Applies and explores
some linguistic methods
– though not always
convincing – beginnings
of evaluative approach.
• Some awareness
and understanding of
concepts and issues in
light of data.
• A number of issues
explored, demonstrating
the beginnings of better
understanding.
• Appropriate
methodology applied.
5-6 • Some consideration
and understanding
of contextual issues/
pressures surrounding
data.
• Beginnings of awareness
of the links between
context and language
features.
• Attempts to engage with
issues.
3
4

3
Mark AO1
Select and apply a range
of linguistic methods, to
communicate relevant
knowledge using
appropriate terminology
and coherent, accurate
written expression.
AO2
Demonstrate critical
understanding of a
range of concepts and
issues related to the
construction and analysis
of meanings in spoken
using knowledge of
linguistic approaches.
Mark AO3
Analyse and evaluate the
influence of contextual
factors on the production
and reception of spoken
showing knowledge of
the key constituents of
language.
5-8 • Limited knowledge and
understanding.
• Basic linguistic methods
applied – often not
convincing in light of
data.
• Limited number of
concepts discussed
relating to data.
• Superficial
understanding of the
parameters of the topic/
data.
• Inappropriate
methodology utilised.
3-4 • Awareness of one or
two factors influencing
the data – often broad
and descriptive in focus.
• Some limited attempt
to analyse contextual
issues/pressures – often
oversimplified.
1-4 • Rudimentary linguistic
knowledge.
• Linguistic methods
applied inaccurately or
not at all to chosen data.
• Elementary
understanding of
language concepts
related to chosen data.
• More knowledge than
relevance. shown
• Flawed methodology
chosen.
1-2 • Little or no attempt
to explore contextual
issues/pressures
surrounding the data.
• Generalised, everyday
awareness.
• Likely to paraphrase/
summarise data
content.
0 • Nothing written • Nothing written 0 • Nothing written
5

Coursework Assessment Criteria Unit 4 – Media Text
• Maximum total marks for media text – 30 marks
Marks AO4 Demonstrate expertise and creativity in the use of English in a range of different
contexts informed by linguistic study.
28-30
25-27
• Originality in the deployment of the structures and conventions associated with media texts.
• Sensitive and convincing manipulation of register to meet demands of audience and
purpose.
• Successful, effective and convincing new text; demonstrates ingenuity and finesse in the
use of original materials and ideas.
• Confident, controlled deployment of the structures and genre conventions.
• Appropriate control of register, demonstrating sophisticated awareness of the demands of
audience and purpose.
• Effective and sustained adaptation of original materials; sources manipulated and integrated
into entirely new text.
22-24
19-21
• Sustained deployment of appropriate structures and genre conventions; strong clarity and
control of writing.
• Coherent register, secure writing style – effective for audience and purpose.
• Effective adaptation of original materials for new audience and purpose.
• Competent deployment of structures and genre conventions - good clarity and control of
writing.
• Growing sophistication in control of register – article likely to be effective for audience and
purpose.
• Largely effective adaptation of original materials for new audience and purpose.
16-18
13-15
• Demonstrates control of genre requirements; good clarity and control in writing.
• Effective register, demonstrating the ability to adapt writing to engage and interest audience.
• Source original materials shaped to suit new audience/purpose – some lack of control at
times.
• Language choices generally effective and appropriate, demonstrating increasing control;
some awareness of structures and genre conventions.
• Register mainly appropriate; some ability to adapt writing to engage and interest audience.
• Partly effective transformation; attempts to shape original materials for new audience/
purpose.
10-12
7-9
• Some ability to control genre requirements for audience and purpose – likely to be
inconsistent.
• Mainly appropriate register - possibly oversimplified at times or overly complex.
• Some transformation - demonstrates awareness of the need to shape original materials for
new audience/purpose.
• Knowledge of genre, and purpose demonstrated; oversimplified audience awareness.
• Beginnings of appropriate register – likely to be inconsistent across writing.
• Some transformation for new audience / purpose, likely to shadow original materials.
4-6
1-3
• Some limited understanding of audience, purpose and genre.
• Some limited control over writing - attempts to develop appropriate register.
• Some limited attempt to transform original materials, though not very successfully; very
dependent on original sources.
• Little understanding of writing activity – inappropriate content; limited awareness of genre,
audience and purpose.
• Ineffective register; imprecise language choices, little control over writing.
• Little transformation of original materials leading to inappropriate content for task.
0 • Nothing written / totally inappropriate for tasks
3
6

A-LEVEL
English Language B
UNIT 4 - ENGB4 – Investigating Language
Report on the Examination
2705
June 2013 – 6A13
Version: 1.0
7

Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk
Copyright © 2013 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this
booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any
material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the school/college.
8

General
Moderators reported that generally this was a very positive series with the majority of schools and
colleges submitting student work which was entirely within the spirit of the specification. Where
problems occurred moderators felt that there were three main issues. These were:
• Use of unproductive investigation methodologies which led to unhelpful approaches to data
collection and analysis
• Approaches to the media text which did not allow students to meet the ‘inform purpose’ of the
writing or use of a vague chosen audience and / or genre for the text
• Overly lenient assessment – particularly around the higher and lower extremes of the
assessment criteria
This report will therefore include a key focus on these areas. As always the advice and information
given in the body of this report is intended to help schools and colleges feel confident to teach and
assess further series of this unit. Further individual advice can be sought via the Coursework
Adviser system and the Centre Standardising Materials published in the autumn.
Language Investigation
This element of the folder is designed to encourage students to independently pursue ‘interesting
questions about language in use’, and once again moderators were impressed by the variety of
topics and approaches undertaken by students. Examples included:
• Language and power, eg analysis of the US presidential debates, representation of power in
The Thick of it, comparison of football coaches’ half-time talk, analysis of the language of
protest lyrics
• Language and gender, eg analysis of the representation of gender on gravestones, comparison
of gender representation on greeting cards, a comparison of a male and female teacher
teaching the same class, a comparison of a male and female leading a group activity
• Language and technology, eg analysis of non-standard forms on Facebook, a comparison of
the language of League of Legends players, an analysis of athletics TV commentary
• Second language acquisition, eg an analysis of code-switching at a family meal, an analysis of
postcards sent between two bilingual speakers
• Language and media, eg a comparison of how the monarchy are represented in two
newspapers, an analysis of how Lance Armstrong was represented in the media
• Language and occupation, eg a comparison of teachers’ language use across a working day,
an analysis of employee newsletters (Marks and Spencer)
• Child language acquisition, eg analysis of how children’s fiction is shaped to engage different
age groups, a comparison of preschool websites
• Language change, eg analysis of how the language of legal inquests has changed over time, a
study of the language of superheroes over time
• Language and dialect, eg analysis of dialect features in the talk of Suffolk natives, analysis of
how social dialects develop between Year 7 and Year 13 in form groups
Clearly these investigations only represent a small number of students, but what moderators were
particularly impressed to see was the way titles were shaped to allow students to pursue
9

interesting language questions and challenge existing language theory. Also in schools and
colleges where students had been encouraged to pursue topics which were of personal interest,
moderators remarked that student performance was improved. A reason for this may be that these
students were prepared to spend longer analysing their data leading to more thoughtful analysis; in
addition the quality and range of the contextual analysis was often more perceptive in these
folders.
As a general reminder to all schools and colleges, the following list represents some essential
components for delivery of the language investigation:
• investigations should allow students to demonstrate that they can work independently in the
selection of their topic, focus of the investigation and approach to data analysis
• students should be supported by their teachers – particularly in areas of ethics and suitability of
topics
• investigations should be data driven (methodologies are central to success)
• in terms of choosing what data to work with, there is no hierarchy of data types
• in terms of deciding how to analysis data, there is no hierarchy of language methods (best
practice demonstrates salient choice and shaping to meet the demands of the question) nor is
there a prescribed number of methods for an investigation (again this is dependent on the
question and / or focus of the investigation)
• evidence of student learning should be clear in the approach to the language investigation in
terms of subheadings and use of data to exemplify comment
• referencing is a mandatory section of the investigation and referencing skills should be
included in delivery of this unit.
Schools and colleges or teachers who are new to this unit may also find it helpful to refer to the
June 2010 ENGB4 Principal Moderator’s Report, as this includes further details of the key
characteristics of the most and least successful language investigations in terms of approaches
and outcomes.
Investigation Methodologies
This section of the language investigation should provide a clear and concise account of the
methodology chosen for data selection. Most students set themselves sensible and appropriate
methods of data collection, often balancing quantitative and qualitative approaches. However,
some students still tend to explain and describe data collection in unnecessary detail, focusing on
the ‘physical’ aspects of where and how the data was collected, which does not fully illuminate the
collection process or the approaches to be taken in the data analysis section.
Some moderators noted that there were some school/college-wide approaches to the methodology
section which suggested that students had not been encouraged to take independent approaches
to data collection or analysis. Where a student chooses to comment on the subheadings or
questions which will ‘shape’ the analysis section, this should include more information than a list of
language methodologies, eg lexis, grammar, graphology. This approach is particularly limiting
when it is clear that all students have been advised to use the same language methods to analyse
a range of different data types. Moderators remarked that where students adapted a language
10

method into a specific question or statement about their data eg A comparison of politeness
strategies used by Speaker A and B, credit could be awarded for this approach and the student
was more likely to keep a tight focus on their investigation title. Ideally every student should have
different subheadings or questions which directly relate to their topic and focus. Where this is not
the case AO2 is affected because the student does not reveal knowledge about language concepts
and AO1 is affected because the language methods cannot be described as ‘salient’.
Several moderators remarked that they saw questionnaires used both as a method for data
collection and as a way of gaining more detail about the contextual factors surrounding the data.
This often proved to be a very successful approach. Several moderators also commented that
students who chose to ‘test’ or ‘repeat’ an existing language theory, eg accommodation theory,
often produced very purposeful and successful investigations. Once again case studies provided
many students with a very successful starting point when considering child language acquisition
and second language acquisition.
Some moderators raised concerns that in a minority of cases students did not adequately consider
ethical issues surrounding their data collection, and worryingly this was often ignored in the
school’s or college’s assessment. Schools and colleges should ensure that students always have
prior permission to record speech or collect written data, and must intervene early in the process if
it is clear that these permissions have not been sought. Schools and colleges are also reminded
that students must be especially careful when collecting data from children or other vulnerable
groups. Furthermore, schools and colleges should encourage students to make sure that private
data is anonymised where possible.
All feedback from moderators this series commented on the fact that where a student had used a
careful methodology to collect data and selected salient methods and or questions to analyse the
data, this always resulted in a more interesting language investigation. It is clear that the
methodology is central to success at all levels and as such it is a fundamental aspect of the
teaching and learning for this unit.
For further advice on selecting an appropriate methodology to set up a language investigation
please refer to the texts listed on the AQA resources list (available in the Teaching and Learning
Resources section of the AQA website) or contact your Coursework Adviser.
Media Text
This element of the ENGB4 folder continues to be handled in very different ways by schools and
colleges. Some schools and colleges follow the specification requirements closely and as such
students produced some excellent work. Examples of interesting media texts this series included:
• How to bluff your way on Twitter (Guardian newspaper article)
• Challenge your book club: choose some language approaches to literature (online book club
article)
• How powerful is our PM? (Times Online article)
• Will my child ever speak? (Women’s Hour script about child language acquisition)
11

• What your diaries reveal about you (Good Housekeeping article)
• What Disney princess are you? (Cosmo article)
• How credible is your coach? Some language tricks to spot a good coach (Men’s Health article)
Moderators remarked that the common theme demonstrated in a successful media text was the
balance of language information and audience engagement. Effective writing often contained few
examples of ‘language jargon’ as the ideas and terms were completely mediated into a new article.
However, at the heart of these articles was a desire to ‘teach’ and ‘inform’ about language
concepts, and moderators were very clear that those students who wrote to inform were always
more convincing than those who added some language information into an article driven by a
general topic.
Despite many examples of good practice this series there are two areas which remain a difficulty
for some schools and colleges, and moderators commented that unfortunately some students are
disadvantaged because of unhelpful approaches taken to this element of the ENGB4 folder.
Language content linked to the ‘inform purpose’
This series in some schools and colleges there was evidence that the language content of the
media text was not being met appropriately. Interestingly there were very few instances where the
language content was completely missing, but there was increasing evidence that some students
were using one or two technical language terms in the body of their writing assuming that this met
the specification requirements. Unfortunately for these students this often resulted in a significant
reduction in their mark as this approach fails to meet the requirements of this task, and leaves
students unable to demonstrate the same level of skill as a student who mediates and transforms
complex language concepts in their writing.
Schools and colleges are reminded that the primary purpose of the media text is to inform a new
audience (who does not study language) about language concepts and theories (Specification,
p.13). The starting point for choosing what to write about is the ‘broad’ link to the investigation
topic, i.e. if the investigation focuses on political speeches, the language topic is ‘power’, and this
allows the student to produce a media text on any aspect of language and power. Students do not
have to choose exactly the same focus as their investigation; in fact evidence suggests that some
students are significantly advantaged by developing a different aspect of their investigation focus.
An example of this approach was highlighted by a student from this series who focused on sport
commentaries for the investigation, which comes under the ‘broad’ topic of language and
technology. The accompanying media text focused on a different aspect of technology – twitter
conventions, taking a ‘How to...’ approach to teaching about the language conventions of twitter.
Chosen audience and genre of the text
In the majority of schools and colleges the genres attempted for this task are fairly similar, with
many students producing articles for named magazines or broadsheet newspapers. Website
articles are also a particularly popular and successful genre. However, some students are
disadvantaging themselves by not offering a precise genre and audience. The success of a
student’s writing cannot be easily assessed or moderated when their genre is simply ‘an article’
12

with ‘an adult’ or ‘general’ audience. Schools and colleges should encourage students to choose
precise genres, eg The Times Online or Good Housekeeping, so that students can demonstrate
that they can tailor their writing to meet the demands of particular audiences and genres. Schools
and colleges should remind their students that they should be building on the knowledge and skills
gained from ENGB2 when considering this aspect of the media text.
Internal Assessment
Several moderators commented that there seemed to be a pattern of overly lenient assessment
emerging in some schools and colleges this series and that this was particularly apparent at the
extremes of the mark scheme. Schools and colleges are reminded that all students need to be
measured against the assessment criteria, ideally referencing Centre Standardising Materials.
Particular care should be taken with assessment where student performance is biased towards
one area of the mark scheme, where there are very few students and where leniency or severity
has been identified in the assessment for previous series.
Internal moderation should demonstrate that there is a consistent approach in the school or college
to standardising folders, and in the majority of cases moderators were impressed by the
professional and rigorous approach taken to cross marking. Many schools and colleges use an
internal assessment sheet which allows for more than one teacher to comment on the quality of
each assessment objective; this is very good practice. Less helpful is a photocopy of the
assessment criteria highlighting the marks awarded, as this does not provide evidence from the
student’s work to explain why individual marks were chosen.
In some cases moderators commented that schools and colleges used letter grades in the
assessment of students’ work. This style of assessment should be avoided, as schools and
colleges need to work with only the numerical mark scheme at this stage of the process. This
approach was particularly unhelpful when letter grades appeared to be the target for the numerical
marks (unexplained positive adjustments often accompany these folders).
Administration Issues
Schools and colleges are reminded that:
• students’ marks need to be carefully checked as they are transferred between student work to
the Candidate Record Form (CRF)
• data for the language investigation should be in paper format only and securely attached
• drafts, multiple copies of data and style models should not be included in the folder
• all folders should contain teacher comments and annotation which indicate how the marks
were awarded to that folder
• normal post should be used rather than special or recorded delivery which requires signatures.
Overall moderators remarked that this was a very positive series for this unit. Indeed the vast
majority of students produced work which was engaging, interesting and relevant at all levels of the
mark scheme. In these cases it was clear that students had been very well supported and that
teachers were entirely conversant with all aspects of the specification. Schools and colleges should
13

be congratulated on this achievement. The success of this coursework unit rests which teachers
who are prepared to encourage students to behave independently and take risks in their learning,
and these skills benefit students well beyond their A-level experience.
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades
Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics
page of the AQA Website.
Converting Marks into UMS marks
Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below.
UMS conversion calculator www.aqa.org.uk/umsconversion
14

AQA Education (AQA) is a registered charity (number 1073334) and a company limited by guarantee registered in England
and Wales (number 3644723). Our registered address is AQA, Devas Street, Manchester M15 6EX.
ENGB4/CRF
2014 Candidate Record Form
A-level English Language B (2705)
Unit 4 - Investigating Language (ENGB4)
This form should be attached to the candidate’s work and either retained at the centre or sent to
the moderator as required. The declarations should be completed by the candidate and teacher
as indicated.
Centre number Centre name
Candidate number Candidate’s full name
Work submitted for assessment must be the candidate’s own. If candidates copy work, allow candidates to copy
from them, or cheat in any other way, they may be disqualified.
Candidate declaration
Have you received help/information from anyone other than subject teacher(s) to produce this work?
No Yes (give details below or on a separate sheet if necessary).
Please list below any books, leaflets or other materials (eg DVDs, software packages, internet information) used to
complete this work not acknowledged in the work itself. Presenting materials copied from other sources without
acknowledgement is regarded as deliberate deception.
From time to time we use anonymous examples of students’ work (in paper form and electronically) within our
guidance materials to illustrate particular points. If your work appears in AQA materials in this context and you
object to this, please contact us and we will remove it on reasonable notice.
I have read and understood the above. I confirm I produced the attached work without assistance other than that
which is acceptable under the scheme of assessment.
Candidate signature Date
Teacher declaration
I confirm the candidate’s work was conducted under the conditions laid out by the specification. I have
authenticated the candidate’s work and am satisfied,(to the best of my knowledge) that the work produced is solely
that of the candidate.
Teacher signature Date
15

To see how we comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 please see our Privacy Statement at aqa.org.uk/privacy
Candidate number Candidate’s full name
To be completed by the teacher
Marks must be awarded in accordance with the instructions and criteria in the specification.
Assessment criteria
Maximum
mark
Mark
awarded
A01 Select and apply a range of linguistic methods, to communicate relevant
knowledge using appropriate terminology and coherent, accurate written
expression.
20
A02 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.
20
A03 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.
10
A04 Demonstrate expertise and creativity in the use of English in a range of
different contexts informed by linguistic study.
30
Total mark 80
Piece 1 Language investigation
Title of work
Meets word count
requirements *
YES / NO
Piece 2 Media text
Title of work
Genre
text type
Audience
Meets word count
requirements *
YES / NO
* delete as appropriate
Details of additional assistance given
Record here details of any assistance given to this candidate which is beyond that given to the class as a whole
and beyond that described in the specification (continue on a separate sheet if necessary).
Concluding comments
16

English Language B
ENGB4
Investigating Language
Folder 1
17

English Language B
ENGB4
Folder 2
43

English Language B
ENGB4
Folder 3
66

English Language B
ENGB4
Folder 4
85

Contact Points
Contact Points for
GCE English Language Specification B
For further help and advice about the above Specification, please contact:
Subject Department: Stag Hill House
Guildford
Surrey
GU2 7XJ
Telephone: 01483 556115
Ask AQA is our online service that
 is fast and efficient
 is available 24 hours a day
 enables you to find answers to your questions and
 send us new questions for a personal answer.
http://web.aqa.org.uk/askaqa.php
e-AQA is our extranet, which enables teachers to access information specific
to their school or college through a secure website. Using e-AQA you can:
 see current and past exam results for students at your centre
 see graphs of exam results using Enhanced Results Analysis
 view recent exam papers, mark schemes and examiners' reports
 access our online shop to buy printed exam materials.
http://web.aqa.org.uk/help/eaqa.php
For help with Support Meeting Information, please contact:
Teacher Support Department:
Email: teachercpd@aqa.org.uk
Telephone: 0161 957 3646
For help with Publications, please contact:
Publications: AQA Logistics Centre (Manchester)
Unit 2, Wheel Forge Way
Ashburton Park
Trafford Park
Manchester
M17 1EH
Direct Line: 0844 209 6614
Fax No: 0161 953 1177
Email: publications@aqa.org.uk
97

Englsih language investigation

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Englsih language investigation

More from tarawilton

Englsih language investigation