Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

Summer 2019

Pearson Edexcel International GCSE

In English Language B (4EB1) Paper 01R
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

Summer 2019
Publications Code 4EB1_01_1906_ER

All the material in this publication is copyright

© Pearson Education Ltd 2019
Introduction

Examiners commented that there was evidence of some good teaching and
learning in preparation for this examination in the responses seen and
examiners commented that many candidates seemed well prepared on the
whole.

Examiners commented that the texts about empowering students were

accessible across the full range of abilities and candidates were able to
engage with the tasks and respond appropriately.

Stronger 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. Less able 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 a few 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

This is a straightforward retrieval question on Text One, which does not

require candidates to use their own words.

The majority of candidates correctly identified one of the given names

within the line references. Occasional spelling errors did not detract from
the responses. A few candidates wasted time copying down too much.

Question 2

This is a straightforward retrieval question on Text One, which does not

require candidates to use their own words.

Most candidates successfully identified a relevant point, commonly ‘bring in

real-world events’ or ‘demonstrate connections’. Those who chose to use
their own words sometimes produced responses that lacked clarity and so
could not achieve the mark. Other candidates included several points, which
was not required. Occasionally candidates used the wrong line references.

Candidates must ensure they read the question carefully.

Question 3

The question asks the candidate how the writer presents her advice to
teachers.
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. Most candidates were able to explain the language and structure and
identify features and support them with a relevant quotation from the text,
but they did not always explain how these features helped the writer to
achieve her effects. Stronger candidates were able to engage with the
significance of language using a variety of examples. Language terms were
frequently used, often correctly. References were regularly made to the use
of direct address, the use of questions, the use of the word ‘inspiring’ and
the metaphor ‘in a bubble’. There was an understanding of the structure of
the piece with regular references to the subtitles and how the content of the
text had developed.

Some candidates offered an explanation of the language used, but the

points made did not always link to the task of how the writer presents her
advice to teachers and simply identified every language device used
regardless of its relevance to the title. Some candidates covered all sections
of the text and so, although there were many quotations used, sometimes
these supported a content-based response rather than focusing on the
writer’s techniques. Sometimes candidates made generic comments such as
‘it makes it more interesting’ or ‘this makes the reader want to read on’
which do not clearly explain how the writer has achieved her 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 her advice’. These tended
to focus on ‘what’ the writer said rather than ‘how’ the writer presented the
advice to teachers. Some of the weakest responses were simply summaries
of the text.

Centres need to remind candidates that this question asks how the writer
achieves his/her effects, and not what he/she says.
Question 4

This is a straightforward retrieval question on Text Two, which does not

require candidates to use their own words.

Most candidates answered correctly with ‘it is about the reputation of young
people, and ‘young people have the opportunity to show they can do really
positive things’. A common error was selecting ‘recognises and supports
young people’ without any comments on them doing positive things.

There were more attempts at using own words in response to this question
but these responses often lacked clarity.

Candidates need to make sure they have read the question carefully.

Question 5

This is a straightforward retrieval question on Text Two, which does not

require candidates to use their own words.

Common correct responses included ‘don’t be scared’, ‘you have a lot more
power than you realise’, ‘having courage’ and ‘don’t stop screaming until
they hear you’. When candidates attempted to use their own words it was
mostly clear, e.g. ‘having courage’ re-worded as ‘be brave’.

Less successful candidates sometimes selected random words that made no

sense out of context, e.g. ‘scared’, ‘power’ or ‘effort’.

Candidates need to make sure they have read the question carefully.

Question 6

The question asks the candidate how the writer conveys her belief that
young people can make a difference. Examiners commented that
candidates’ responses had similar qualities to the responses to Question 3
although some observed that this question was answered more successfully.

Successful candidates were able to explore the writer’s use of language and
structure using a variety of examples. There were references to the use of
pronouns, repetition, the inspirational language and short sentence
structures. Candidates were able to explore the metaphor ‘shine a
spotlight’. They appreciated the format of the speech and the positive tone.
Most candidates were able to identify and explain what the writer is saying
and the language used to express this although there was often a tendency
to describe what the chosen examples said rather than how the language
was used for effect. A few candidates did not focus on the task and simply
went through the text, identifying the techniques used but not addressing
how these helped the writer to convey her belief that young people can
make a difference.

Less successful candidates produced responses that were content based

without much focus on ‘how the writer presents her ideas’. Some candidates
wrote a summary of the text but did not offer any comments on language
or structure. Sometimes candidates made generic comments such as ‘it
makes it more interesting’ or ‘this makes the reader want to read on’ which
do not clearly explain how the writer has achieved her effects. There was
also evidence of ‘feature spotting’ where candidates identify (correctly)
particular language features but do not explain them.

Less able candidates were confused about what was written and how it was
expressed. They lacked focus on the question and included the negative
views about young people.

As with Question 3, centres need to remind candidates that this question

asks how the writer achieves his/her effects, and not what he/she says.

Question 7

This question requires candidates to compare how the writers present their
ideas and perspectives on why it is important for young people to be
involved in social change. Examiners commented that the majority of
candidates were able to identify and discuss basic differences at a
minimum, and some produced well-thought out comparisons of the
extracts.

Candidates attempted to deal with both passages and they were able to
make appropriate links and connections. Some chose to do this separately
text by text with a comparative section at the end whereas others made
points of comparison linking the passages throughout. The latter approach
tended to produce more successful responses.

Successful candidates focused on the question and developed a balanced

approach in comparing the texts. They developed a wide range of
comparisons and explored the writers’ ideas and perspectives. Most
candidates understood that Text One was aimed at teachers whereas Text
Two was aimed at young people and that both texts consider the
importance of empowering young people. There were references to tone
and levels of formality with some candidates commenting on the more
formal style of Text One showing that it was more serious, and therefore,
more meaningful.
Sometimes candidates commented on comparisons and supported them
appropriately but did not develop their explanations. There were a few
candidates who offered a number of comparisons but did not provide any
kind of support or references to the texts.

Some candidates compared the language of the texts, so there was possibly
some repetition of points that might have been made in response to
Questions 3 and 6. However, there were some candidates who compared
the language without giving examples.

Less able candidates often compared the content. Some candidates wrote
paragraphs which summarised the content of the two extracts but did not
compare them. Less successful candidates sometimes wrote about one text
and then added some undeveloped points about the other text at the end.
The least successful candidates wrote very little.

Occasionally candidates answered this question as if it was Question 10 on

the legacy specification. This is not a successful approach as it does not
allow the candidate to fully compare the texts.

Centres will need to continue to work with candidates to make sure they
have a clear understanding of valid ways of responding to texts in Section
A. 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.

Most candidates understood the requirement of the task and were able to
use the appropriate register for a letter to a friend. 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 personal touches and rhetorical language to
engage the audience. Many candidates were able to adopt an appropriate
register and there was some clear evidence of an understanding of the
purpose, audience and format required although a few candidates struggled
adopt an appropriate register.
AO1

Most candidates referred to the three bullet points and managed to cover a
reasonable number of points. Some candidates failed to address the first
bullet point (different types of organisations or campaigns) and it was
occasionally treated quite superficially although stronger candidates were
able to integrate their own examples such as local charities, the Red Cross
and UNICEF showing personal engagement.

The second bullet point, concerning how to take part, was sometimes not
covered in sufficient detail, but points ranged from the practical ‘fill a form
in on the internet’ to more abstract comments about making decisions and
developing independence and resilience.

In responding to the third bullet point candidates commented on the

negative perception of young people and how participation in such
campaigns was character building. They commented that it was necessary
to prove that young people were responsible individuals in their own right.

Less able candidates wrote about just one bullet point, or only commented
briefly on the second and/or third. Some lifted information directly from the
texts or only considered only one text.

AO4

Examiners commented that most candidates were able to produce a

successful letter to a friend encouraging him or her to join an organisation
or campaign to make a positive difference to society using form, tone and
register appropriately. There was clear evidence of an understanding of the
purpose, audience and format required.

Stronger candidates used rhetorical and persuasive techniques and

established a sense of the friendly relationship with the recipient. Many
candidates used an introductory paragraph devoted to establishing that this
was a letter and most candidates sustained an appropriate register for a
letter. Sometimes the letters were too formal given the audience was a
friend.

Some candidates only acknowledged the register at the beginning and

ending of their response, rather than maintaining it through the whole
response. Less successful candidates had problems sustaining the required
register throughout their response. Some responses were more like
recruitment leaflets or articles than a personal letter. There were some
quite brief responses.
AO5

Most candidates were able to write with clarity and spell a range of
vocabulary correctly. Successful candidates had full control of sentence
structures and used them for effect. They were able to use some impressive
and sophisticated vocabulary. Paragraphing was generally handled well.
Some candidates had problems with grammar, despite good spelling and
punctuation.

Common errors were: missing out definite and indefinite articles; missing
out parts of verbs; incorrect subject/verb agreement; comma splicing; lack
of capital letters, especially for ‘I’ and sometimes at the start of sentences.

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. They should also be able to write with accurate
grammar, spelling and punctuation.

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

The title was approached in a range of ways – quite a few concentrated on

historical and contemporary figures who had made a difference such as
Steve Jobs, Malala and Martin Luther King. Others included examples closer
to their own experiences, e.g. how a friend or family member made a
positive difference to their own life.

Most candidates were able to present an argument with a consideration of

both sides. Some used rhetoric to make this sound more like an article with
‘you’ and rhetorical questions. Stronger candidates gave specific examples,
usually of named people, to demonstrate their points. Some responses were
philosophical, and the response was often about the nature of how people
can make a difference by joining organisations, fund raising, inspiring
others and generally their attitude to life and their overall positivity. Less
successful candidates presented muddled ideas or were very brief. Some of
these 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

Some examiners commented positively on the quality of some of the

responses to the title ‘The Challenge’. There were some well-written
narratives with engaging plots.

There were many varied responses to ‘The Challenge’. Challenges were both
physical and mental. There were challenges about exams, fantasy or
military quests, starting a business, parents with cancer, many sports-based
responses and mountain climbing, travelling up the Amazon, surviving on a
desert island or in a haunted forest. Some narratives were positive and
highlighted the importance of succeeding in the challenge and the positive
benefits of this achievement. Others ended tragically in that characters
became obsessed with their challenge, and then suffered accidents because
they became too arrogant to take basic precautions in their quest such as
mountain climbing or hiking. Some plots were quite dark. These unpleasant
plots sometimes struggled to maintain focus on the title.

Most candidates were able to write a narrative with some sense of plot.
Stronger candidates planned their ideas well, focused on developing
characters as well as plot, selected (and omitted) details to create pace and
sometimes tension. Responses which explored the reasons for the challenge
and what the consequences meant in terms of a life change were often
more effective. Sometimes narratives had too much direct speech and this
impeded the development of the plot.

Less able candidates lacked development of ideas or the ability to maintain

a narrative. They struggled at times with clarity, with muddled storylines
and weak endings that were not closely related to the events that had
unfolded. Some of the weaker responses showed evidence of prepared
essays with little adaptation or memorised descriptive paragraphs.

Centres need to ensure candidates have a secure understanding of narrative

techniques and the ability to develop a coherent and cohesive personal
response.

Question 11

AO4

Candidates produced some well written responses that were fully focused on
the task of describing a time when they felt nervous.

One examiner commented positively on these responses because there was

a wide range of interpretations of the task. These included exam nerves, a
new school, speaking in public performances on the stage, participation in
sporting fixtures, job interviews and first dates. Sometimes these specific
times came from childhood memories, and candidates made the comment
that they had grown as a result of having experienced these occasions and
were now less likely to be nervous if confronted with a similar situation
again. Some of these responses could have become sentimental, but that
rarely happened and candidates spoke honestly about situations and how
they had reacted to them. A few discussed how nerves affect the body with
no context. Sometimes the responses were too narrative losing the
descriptive focus of the task.

Most candidates were able to express nervousness to some degree.

Successful candidates described in detail how it felt to be nervous. They
used very effective imagery and gave perceptive descriptions of tension,
using structural features as well as vocabulary to build tension. Less
successful candidates tended to produce responses that were pedestrian,
used a limited range of vocabulary and lacked detail.

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

Spelling, punctuation and grammar were generally sound in many

responses. Better responses had full control of spelling, punctuation and
grammar. Weaker responses had poor language controls and weak
paragraphing. There was evidence of good spelling and reasonably accurate
punctuation, but 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. These
problems limited the effectiveness of the communication.

Common errors were: problems with homophones; missing out definite and
indefinite articles; not maintaining the correct verb tense; incorrect
subject/verb agreement; comma splicing; lack of capital letters, especially
for ‘I’ and sometimes at the start of sentences.

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 in response to Questions 3 and 6;

• were able to select a wide range of comparisons and explore the

writers’ ideas and perspectives in response to 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 in
response to Questions 3 and 6;

• were not able to compare the texts or offered very limited

comparisons in response to Question 7;

• sometimes narrated or copied 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 (Questions 9, 10 and 11);

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

Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom