English A1 Paper 1 HL May 2011: An Examiner's Observations

Many candidates had trouble with the prose text. They could not grasp the ironic tone, matter, and situation. A lot of them misread it as some kind of an emotional farewell speech, completely overlooking the bitter tone of the narrator. They thought the narrator had a very close and intimate relationship with his students. The narrator’s wife was not discussed in most cases. This is because she is only briefly mentioned in the text, and candidates might have easily overlooked her.

The treatment of the issue of history in the text gave rise to problems among candidates. This, I think, has to do with the fact that it is ambiguously stated by the author. The character Price’s last comments about history were not satisfactorily discussed by most. Most simply did not know what to make of them.

The significance of the parentheses in the text was almost always ignored by candidates. If it was noted, the analysis that followed was usually superficial and ineffective.

Many did not comment on the speech being imaginary. As far as most candidates were concerned, this was an actual speech that the narrator delivered in front of his favourite class.

The poem, a lot more transparent, was less problematic. Even then some candidates failed to appreciate the ambiguous tone of the speaker. Some thought the snow was death itself; some interpreted it to be a Christian poem about the afterlife (this was especially true among Christian candidates). The vagueness of stanzas 4 & 5 gave some candidates problems. Some thought it was a thoroughly pessimistic poem about life, missing the optimistic tone in the last stanza entirely.

Most candidates knew how to structure a commentary (although it largely depends on the centre). The one area that most candidates excel in is “literary terms.” Many centres, I suppose, have advised their candidates to learn them by heart. Quite a few candidates also knew how to incorporate quotes properly into their arguments.

It was clear in some cases that the candidates were prepared only for either prose or poetry. Some centres do this thinking that it will benefit the candidates to focus only on one discipline. There is the general perception that poetry is more difficult than prose, with the result of quite a few centres preparing their candidates only for the latter. This was unfortunate because the prose text was obviously less transparent this year. Many candidates suffered because of this one-sided approach to the paper.

The better scripts were usually the ones discussing the poem. A fair number of candidates were well-prepared for poetry. The one weakness that I tended to come across in poem commentaries was the labelling of poetic devices. Many candidates simply churned out labels (This is an “anaphora,” etc.) without commenting on their effects.