4eb1 01 Pef 20230824

Examiners’ Report
June 2023
Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01
Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications
Edexcel and BTEC qualifications come from 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.
Giving you insight to inform next steps
ResultsPlus is Pearson's free online service giving instant and detailed analysis of your
students' exam results.
See students' scores for every exam question.

Understand how your students' performance compares with class and national averages.
Identify potential topics, skills and types of question where students may need to develop
their learning further.
For more information on ResultsPlus, or to log in, visit www.edexcel.com/resultsplus. Your

exams officer will be able to set up your ResultsPlus account in minutes via Edexcel Online.
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.
June 2023
Publications Code 4EB1_01_2306_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2023
Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 2

Introduction
The texts about walking and being outdoors were accessible across the full range of abilities
and candidates were able to engage with the tasks and respond appropriately.
Examiners commented there was evidence of some good teaching and learning in
preparation for this examination in the responses seen and many candidates seemed
generally well-prepared. Examiners saw some good responses across all the questions.
More successful 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 successful 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 some candidates who made references to the pictures in their responses to
Question 3, Question 6 and Question 7. This is not an appropriate way to respond to the
texts as the pictures are not language or structural devices chosen for effect by the writers.
There were a number of blank responses, notably for Question 7, which may indicate issues
with timing. Candidates should be encouraged to respond to every question.
There were some candidates who copied out all, or considerable parts, of the extracts in
response to Question 8. This can never be a successful way to respond as candidates are
required to produce their own work and show the ability to adapt the original texts for a
different audience and purpose.
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.
3 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Question 1
This is a straightforward question on Text One which does not require candidates to use their
own words.
The majority of candidates responded correctly and the most popular correct responses
were: ‘immersing yourself in nature’ and ‘you can switch off from worries’. The most common
errors came from using the wrong lines, eg the heading of the previous section: ‘improves
and strengthens mental health’ or using the heading to the section given in the question:
‘Being outdoors reduces stress.’
Examiners did comment that many candidates were writing too much and giving too many
points for this one mark question and perhaps spending too long on it.
Candidates must ensure they read the text and the question carefully.

Question 2
This is a straightforward question on Text One which does not require candidates to use their
own words.
Most candidates provided correct examples of the ways the writer says that people can take
more exercise outside. All six of the bullet points were seen. Common correct responses
were ‘hiking a trail’, ‘an evening walk’ and ‘popping outside in your lunch break’.
Common errors included ‘taking a break from your phone’, ’thinking more effectively and
carefully’ and ‘it is completely free of charge’. Some took points from the wrong lines, such as
‘a stroll in the park’.
Examiners did comment that many candidates were writing too much and giving too many
points for this one mark question and perhaps spending too long on it.
Candidates must ensure they read the question and the text carefully.

Question 3
The question asks the candidate how the writer presents her ideas about the importance of
spending more time outdoors.
Examiners commented that most candidates demonstrated at least some understanding of

the text and some awareness of the devices used to present ideas. Candidates were able to
demonstrate some understanding of language and structure and how these were used to
present the writer’s ideas about the importance of spending more time outdoors. Some
examiners observed that candidates had been prepared for this question and knew how to
approach it.
Candidates were able to identify a range of features and support them with examples from
the text such as the use of colloquial language to make a link to the readers, sub-headings
with some commenting on young people’s attention span, listing, direct address and first
person.
Successful responses were developed, analytical and examined a range of language and
structural features used, exploring the impact on the reader and the intended effects. These
candidates used embedded quotations and explored and analysed these in depth. They were
able to explore how ideas were presented, supporting their ideas with well-integrated
quotations and references. A good range of points was selected and detailed references were
offered supporting the points being made. Points made included the advisory tone, use of
imperatives, the self-deprecating tone of the writer and the use of research to give credibility.
A number related the writer’s techniques successfully to the intended audience of young
people, identifying features like the use of informal language.
However a significant number of examiners commented that candidates did not comment
on the effects of their chosen features on the reader. A number of responses that did identify
techniques failed to make specific reference to the writer’s intended effects, saying little
more than ‘this interests the reader’, ‘to help the passage flow’ or ‘this makes the reader want
to read on’. There was also evidence of ‘feature spotting’ where candidates identify (correctly)
particular language features and offer textual support but do not explain them. Occasionally
candidates adopted a list like approach to this question identifying techniques and choosing
appropriate references but doing no more.
Less successful candidates produced responses that were content based. These tended to
focus on ‘what’ the writer said rather than ‘how’ the writer presented her ideas about the
importance of spending more time outdoors. Some of the weakest responses were simply
summaries or direct copies of the text.
Centres need to remind candidates that this question asks how the writer achieves his/her
effects, not what he/she says.

This is a successful response to Question 3.

The selection of references is often discriminating and clarifies points
being made. There is some perceptive understanding of the text, but a
lack of analysis keeps it at the lower end of Level 5. Mark = 9, Level 5.
Note how the candidate has focused on individual words and phrases
and their effects to show how the writer presents her ideas.

This is a less successful response to Question 3.

Some understanding is shown but the response lacks range. The last
paragraph is vague and generalised when it suggests that shorter
paragraphs make it easier to read for the younger reader. Mark = 4,
Level 2.
Try to find a range of points from across the whole text.

Question 4
This is a straightforward question on Text Two which does not require candidates to use their
own words.
The majority of the candidates responded correctly with the most popular responses being
‘he was out of shape’ and ‘his pack was too heavy’. Incorrect responses used the wrong line
references – a common one was that there was ‘more hill’ which comes from line 12 – or
identified descriptions such as ‘chuckling stream’ and ‘brittle ice’, which were not difficulties.
Some candidates tried to reword the points from the text, not always successfully. There is no
requirement for candidates to use their own words and examiners commented that it wasted
time which could have been spent on higher tariff questions.
Centres need to make sure that candidates read the question carefully.

Question 5
This is a straightforward question on Text Two which does not require candidates to use their
own words.
Most candidates correctly identified two of the experiences the writer had.
The most popular experiences identified were ‘the chilled air’, ‘the smell of pine sap',
‘sprawling face down’, ‘looking at nature’ and ‘the view is sensational’. A number succinctly
achieved the two marks with ‘the chilled air smelled of pine sap’. Incorrect responses
sometimes identified feelings rather than experiences, eg ‘he was tired’, ‘he is past caring’.
Some used ‘had your first magnifying glass’, not recognising that this was not a current
experience. Other unsuccessful responses chose material from outside the line references,
eg ‘It was hell.’
Some examiners commented that candidates were writing too much and giving too many
points for this two mark question and perhaps spending too long on it.
Centres need to make sure that candidates read the question carefully.

Question 6
The question asks the candidate how the writer presents his experiences of his walk.
Some examiners commented that candidates’ performance was similar to Question 3,

however other examiners observed that candidates did not do as well on this question. Many
candidates missed the humour in the text, seeing it as a gritty, realistic account.
Most candidates were able to identify some features and attempt to describe the writer’s
intentions and effects on the reader; however examiners commented that candidates did not
always develop their comments on the intended effects of these features. They were able to
comment on the language used although there was often a tendency to explain what the
language meant rather than to explore how it was used for effect. Most candidates
commented on the negative tone, particularly ‘It was hell’. Most were able to identify the use
of first person eg ‘I trudged’, direct address eg ‘What else can you do?’ and listing eg ‘bug-
eyed, breathing hard, heart kabooming alarmingly’. They also commented on the use of
repetition of ‘way too much’ and ‘I was hopelessly out of shape – hopelessly’, for example.
The use of short sentences throughout the text was also mentioned.
Successful responses used supporting textual evidence to illustrate the points they were
making, selecting apt examples of language and structure and then analysing the writer’s
intended effects. They understood language techniques and stylistic devices at a greater
depth, could identify them in the text, used better linguistic terminology in their writing, and
offered a variety of points. They often understood the tone – as one marker commented,
they appreciated ‘the heavy irony and self-abasement’ typical of Bryson. They were able to
explore and engage with the contrast between the description of the sky and the repetition
of the word ‘brown’ and the contrast between ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’. Some commented on the
personification of his pack and others discussed the effect of ‘heart kabooming alarmingly’.
There was evidence of ‘feature spotting’ where candidates identify (correctly) particular
language features but do not explain them. Occasionally candidates adopted a list like
approach to this question identifying techniques and choosing appropriate references but
doing no more. A number of responses that did identify techniques failed to make specific
reference to the writer’s intended effects, making generic comments such as ‘it makes it
more interesting’ or ‘this makes the reader want to read on’.
Some candidates commented on the picture and also the glossed word as though they were
part of the text. Candidates should be reminded that the picture and glossary are provided to
aid understanding and are never part of the passage they should be commenting on.
Less successful responses struggled to develop their responses beyond identifying obvious
features with a little comment. They often used over-long quotations in support. The least
successful tended to re-tell the events or simply copied out sections of the text.

There were some blank responses.
As with Question 3, centres need to remind candidates that this question asks how the writer
achieves his/her effects, not what he/she says.

This is a very successful response to Question 6.

Perceptive understanding and analysis of language is demonstrated
throughout. A range of language and structural features are explored,
including sentence structure, negative language, rhetorical questions,
imperatives and juxtaposition. The selection of references is
discriminating and these are successfully embedded in the response to
clarify the points being made. Mark = 10, Level 5.
Note how the candidate has focused on and analysed individual words
and phrases to show how the writer presents his ideas.


The answer identifies and lists a series of points made in the source
text but focuses more on what the writer is telling us, rather than how
the writer has used language and structure to achieve effects. There is
some understanding of and comment on language and structure, e.g.
when talking about the effect of the author repeating part of his
sentences. Mark = 3, Level 2.
Remember to focus on how the writer achieves his effects not what he
says.

Question 7
This question requires candidates to compare how the writers convey their ideas and
perspectives about being outdoors. It was evident that many candidates had been taught
how to answer this question. Examiners commented that the majority of candidates were
able to identify and discuss basic similarities and differences at a minimum, and a number
produced well-thought-out comparisons of the extracts. Some examiners commented that
candidates engaged well with the task and most understood the need to make points of
comparison but other examiners thought candidates found this task more demanding. Some
examiners commented positively on evidence of planning these responses although others
felt that there was very little evidence of even simple plans which might have aided
comparison. Examiners noticed that some candidates appeared to be responding in the style
of the mark scheme. This is not a successful way to respond to this question. The mark
scheme offers indicative content as a guide for markers.
Most candidates made comparisons between the texts and wrote about both. They were
able to identify similarities and differences between the texts and support their ideas with
valid references. Points of comparison included: the first text was very positive about going
outside for exercise and the second text was less enthusiastic; the intention of the texts (the
first one was instructive whereas the second one was a personal account); one was an article
and the other a travel book; both were ‘informal’ in style.
More candidates are writing responses that are comparative throughout, eg identifying
points of comparison from each text in an integrated response. This is a successful way to
respond to this task. There were some candidates who wrote about each text individually
and then wrote a comparative comment at the end. Examiners commented that these
responses were not as successful as those candidates whose responses were comparative
throughout.

Successful candidates were able to structure their responses comparatively by taking the
various features of the text and comparing and contrasting them throughout. They were able
to make a wide range of comparisons with clear exploration of ideas and perspectives and
support their points with references which were balanced across both texts. They were able
to examine the similarities and differences and what these showed about the writers’
viewpoints. Some compared how the writers convey their thoughts and feelings about the
benefits of being outdoors/walking through structural and language devices. There were
some good, developed responses which examined and explored a variety of comparisons of
both presentational features and ideas and perspectives. Comparisons made included: the
use of colloquial and direct address; the use of humour in both texts; how Text 1 is more
positive than Text 2, although some candidates commented that the overall effect of Text 2
was still quite positive as the physical challenge was part of the experience; Text 1 was
persuasive and Text 2 was descriptive, literary non-fiction that people would read for
pleasure and some understood that Bill Bryson's account was meant to be a good read about
overcoming adversity.
Some candidates compared the writers’ techniques and did not relate these comparisons to
the writers’ ideas and perspectives. They wrote about what the writers used in terms of
language and structural devices but did not really elaborate on how these techniques helped
them to present their ideas and perspectives. Some candidates offered a range of
comparisons but did not support their points with references to the texts, which limited their
achievement.
Less successful candidates made few comparative comments. They tended to respond by
listing comparisons one after the other often with no references, or by listing quotations
from each text with no further comment. They sometimes gave summaries of the texts and
concluded their response with a brief overview of one or two similarities. Some less
successful candidates focused on inappropriate points of comparison such as the use of full
stops or commas which showed little understanding of the writers’ ideas and perspectives.
Some candidates paraphrased the texts, retelling the passages or directly lifted from the
texts.
Some examiners commented that there were more unfinished or blank responses to this
question than any other. This may be a time management issue or candidates prioritising
Section B and C over Section A. Candidates should be encouraged to respond to every task.
Centres will need to continue to work with candidates to make sure they have a clear
understanding of valid ways of responding to texts. This should include how to analyse how
writers use language and structure to achieve their effects and how to write comparative
responses.


This is a very full response which meets all of the Level 5 criteria. There
is a varied and comprehensive range of comparisons including the
contrasting perspectives on walking, the different ways descriptive
writing is used and the use of first person. Analysis of writers’ ideas
and perspectives is clearly demonstrated and references are balanced
across the texts and fully support the points being made. Mark = 15,
Level 5.
Note how the candidate compares both texts throughout the response
and considers a comprehensive variety of different comparisons.


This response makes several valid comparisons, e.g. about the
differing use of personal anecdotes in the texts and offers valid
explanations of these. The points made are not supported by
references to the text and so the response does not go beyond Level 2.
Mark = 6, Level 2.
Always remember to support your comparisons with examples from

the texts.

Question 8
There was some evidence of good teaching and learning in the responses to this section.
Most candidates understood the requirement of the task and were able to use the
appropriate register for a talk to peers. It was generally felt that most 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 clear evidence of an understanding of the purpose,
audience and format required, although some examiners commented that a few candidates
struggled to adopt an appropriate register.
AO1
Most candidates referred to the three bullet points and managed to cover a reasonable
number of points. Most were able to make fairly equal use of the texts, although some
examiners noted that Text 2 sometimes was referenced less successfully. Some candidates
were able to make appropriate use of their own experiences. The first and second bullet
points were often covered in the most detail, with different walks including dog walks, city
walks and hiking. Oddly a number of candidates identified jogging as a form of walking. More
attention was paid to the benefits of walking than to the other two bullet points in some
responses. For bullet point 2 there was a lot of borrowing from Text 1, but most did manage
to use their own words to some extent. Some did get side-tracked into writing about
problems you might encounter if you didn’t exercise for bullet point 3, but most did answer it
as intended. Many were inspired by Text 2 to write about physical problems and heavy bags,
but there were also a few sobering ones who wrote about the danger of getting robbed and
attacked in the city they lived in. Others wrote about physical dangers such as snakes and
bears or the danger of dehydration. There was also evidence that many candidates live in
physical environments where it is too hot to walk outside most of the time and too hostile to
ramble in the remainder.
More successful candidates were able to refer perceptively to information and ideas whilst
maintaining the required tone and register. These responses were more balanced and
offered a good range of points on all three bullets from both texts. They were able to include
a wide range of ideas and cover the bullet points in detail, adding their own examples to
make their talk more persuasive. They used the passages skilfully and were genuinely
persuasive in the way they presented the benefits of walking and going outside and cleverly
blended in ideas from the texts.
Less successful candidates were able to select and interpret a small range of bullet points,
sometimes paraphrasing the content of both texts. Some of the less successful responses
were brief, did not have much focus on the ideas in the passages, and did not offer balance
between the texts and bullet points. In the least successful responses there was evidence of
much lifting from the original texts without any attempt to re-work the material.

AO4
Most candidates wrote using an appropriate tone and register for their perceived audience.
They were able to communicate their ideas clearly and sometimes persuasively, with a clear
sense of audience. Most responses were written in an appropriate style for a talk to peers
and made use of features like direct address, humour and rhetorical questions to create a
convincingly chatty and persuasive tone. There were a lot who started with something jokey
like: ‘I know you’ll be shocked to see me talking about the benefits of exercise.’ There was the
usual mix of familiarity: ‘you all know me’, and comments aimed at audience participation:
‘put your hands up if you have walked to school this week’.
Successful responses were lively and engaging with a good personal voice, clearly addressing
an audience of peers. They used a wide range of techniques to communicate their ideas
often adopting a highly persuasive tone and selecting techniques such as humour, direct
address and rhetorical questions to communicate their ideas. They offered clear and well-
organised responses adapting form, tone and register in an effective and sophisticated
manner. They were able to relate directly to the teenage audience, for example commenting
on ‘teen issues’ such as ‘nagging parents’ or ‘revising for exams’ or by using anecdotes and
personal experiences to support the benefits of walking.
Less successful candidates communicated at a basic level and had problems sustaining the
required register throughout their response. Some did not convey any sense that this was
supposed to be a talk, writing in a style that resembled a letter, an article or an essay. They
often had issues with clarity as they had weak writing skills and this impeded their ability to
communicate clearly.
AO5
There were some examples of successful responses with good levels of accuracy.
Most candidates were able to use spelling, punctuation and grammar to make their meaning
clear. They were able to communicate clearly with reasonably accurate sentence structures
and a range of vocabulary. Spelling was often correct and many candidates tried hard to use
a range of sentence structures and punctuation for effect. Most employed some
paragraphing, sometimes using the given bullet points to help them. However some
examiners commented that although spelling was often accurate, expression, grammar and
punctuation were not always secure. Some examiners commented that it was pleasing to see
evidence that candidates were checking and correcting their work.
More successful candidates used a varied range of correctly spelt vocabulary with some
ambition and used a range of appropriate punctuation and different sentence structures to
help them create particular effects. These responses employed accurate paragraphing which
could be for effect. There was often evidence of proofreading.

Less successful candidates sometimes struggled to communicate their ideas and their
language controls were not always secure, especially grammar. Some examiners commented
that weaker candidates had problems with grammar and expression, despite good spelling
and punctuation. Other examiners noted that punctuation was an issue with candidates
writing long, one sentence paragraphs or using very little sentence punctuation.
Common errors commented on by examiners were: missing basic sentence punctuation; the
use of very long, unstructured sentences; comma splicing; missing or misused apostrophes;
problems with homophones; misspelling of basic vocabulary; not capitalising ‘I’ for the
personal pronoun; missing capital letters at the beginning of sentences as well as random
capital letters within sentences; verb tenses and other grammatical errors.
Centres should continue to work to ensure candidates have a clear idea of how to adapt
ideas from texts and how to write appropriately and accurately for different audiences and
purposes.


AO1: The material is persuasive throughout and there is a wide range
of relevant, well-focused points. Mark = 10, Level 5.
AO4: The writing is perceptive, subtle and sharply focused on the

purpose and audience with only the occasional lapse. Mark = 12,
Level 5.
AO5: Whilst there are a small number of errors, this does manipulate
complex ideas with a range of features and an extensive vocabulary.
Mark 8, Level 5.
Note how the candidate has covered all the bullet points in detail and
maintained the sharp focus on purpose and audience throughout the
response.


AO1: Although the response touches on all of the bullets, the third
bullet is only briefly covered in terms of the problems they might face.
Some points made are undeveloped and quite thin. There is not
enough evidence of secure appreciation of the audience to move
beyond Level 2. Mark = 4, Level 2.
AO4 : The response is clearly communicated, but a lack of detail means

there is not enough evidence to move beyond some grasp of purpose
and reader and this is a straightforward use of form, tone and register.
Mark = 5, Level 3.
AO5: The writing is accurate, but the brevity of the response means
there is a lack of range in evidence. No paragraphs are used. Mark = 4,
Level 2.
This response could have been improved by having a wider range of

ideas used from the two texts and using a stronger register.

Question 9
AO4
Examiners commented positively on some candidates’ responses to this question. However

some examiners thought that some candidates struggled to develop and sustain a response.
The topic ‘Fresh air and exercise are the keys to happiness’ was accessible and many
candidates who chose this question had clear and informed opinions.
Most candidates were able to communicate their ideas successfully and understood the
nature of discursive writing. They were able to put forward reasonable points and explain
and justify them. Ideas presented included: family and friends were more important; the
effect of endless revising; the impact of COVID; mental and physical health benefits.
More successful candidates adopted a persuasive and argumentative tone and had clearly
been prepared to write this kind of response. These responses had a clear structure with a
strong introduction and conclusion. They generally took a broader view and looked at the
positives and negatives of exercises and generally came to a more balanced judgement. They
included anecdotes and examples that illustrated their ideas in a thoughtful way. Some
candidates disagreed, quite persuasively, that ‘fresh air and exercise are not the only keys to
happiness’. Some referred to people who could not get fresh air and exercise because of
their circumstances and made the sensible point that fresh air and exercise were important
but could not guarantee happiness. It was clear that these candidates had been well-
prepared in meeting the demands of this type of task and had a range of appropriate skills to
tackle the task in a focused and sustained manner. There was a good range of rhetorical
techniques used such as the use of questions, expert opinion, anecdotes and listing, to
convince the reader to their own side of the argument.
Less successful candidates had problems with both maintaining a clear argument and
structuring their responses. They sometimes struggled to find enough ideas and these
responses became repetitive or were brief. Some did not discuss and just wrote about fresh
air being good for you in as many ways as they could think of. They often relied heavily on
the texts for their ideas.
Centres need to ensure that candidates who choose this option are well prepared in
argumentative, discursive and rhetorical techniques and are able to develop and sustain
their ideas effectively.

AO5
AO5 comments are the same across all three options (Question 9, 10 and 11).
Most candidates were able to develop and express information and ideas in a suitable way
with the use of appropriate structural and grammatical features. They used a range of
correctly spelt vocabulary and were able to punctuate with some control. Most were able to
communicate successfully even if there were errors. Examiners did comment that there was
a lack of variety in the use of punctuation.
More successful responses had full control of spelling, punctuation and grammar. These
candidates were able to use a wide range of structural devices together with accurate
spelling of a wide vocabulary and correctly use a wide range of punctuation often used for
effect.
Less successful candidates had difficulty communicating clearly. They were often repetitive
with their word choices and sentence structures and had many errors. They had poor
language controls and weak paragraphing. There were often numerous errors of spelling,
punctuation and grammar.
There was evidence of good spelling and reasonably accurate punctuation but most
examiners commented on candidates who had problems with grammar and expression such
as problems with tenses and sentence structure, including missing words. Some examiners
also commented on the use of over-ambitious vocabulary which was not effective or
appropriate. Some examiners noted that the use of paragraphing was an issue for some
candidates. These problems limited the effectiveness of the communication.
Common errors commented on by examiners were: missing basic sentence punctuation;

comma splicing; missing or misused apostrophes; problems with homophones; misspelling
of basic vocabulary; not capitalising ‘I’ for the personal pronoun; missing capital letters at the
beginning of sentences as well as random capital letters within sentences; grammatical
errors such as problems with sentence structures, subject-verb agreement and verb tenses.
Centres need to focus on developing accurate and effective grammatical structuring and
punctuation to enable candidates to express themselves clearly and access the higher mark
bands.

This is a response to Question 9.

AO4: The response communicates clearly and demonstrates a clear
sense of purpose. There is a range of points supporting the candidate’s
argument and form, tone and register are appropriate throughout, but
lack the effectiveness required for Level 4. Mark = 11, Level 3.
AO5: The response is paragraphed appropriately and spelling is

generally accurate, including words with irregular patterns. The
response does not demonstrate the wide, selective vocabulary
required for Level 4. Mark = 6, Level 3.
Think about how more development of ideas and a more persuasive

use of form, tone and register might have improved this response.

Question 10
Question 10 was the most popular question.
Examiners, as always, commented on how much they enjoyed reading the responses in this
section.
AO4
Examiners commented positively on the quality of some of the responses to the title ‘A
Difficult Decision’.
Candidates interpreted this question in a wide range of ways. There was a wide range of
difficult decisions, from straightforward material choices to more emotive choices around
relationships, choice of further education college, friendships and other moral dilemmas.
Difficult choices were identified such as about moving to other schools, different countries or
family issues, eg which parent to go with after a divorce. Some were focused on personal
events or seemingly personal events such as friendship issues, a problem with a relationship,
telling someone you wanted to split up with them. Some of the decisions were life or death
ones involving blood transfusions, medical dilemmas or organ donation. Other ideas
included deciding whether to steal something or deciding who was to survive in a disaster. A
number of candidates successfully used personal experiences to inform their narrative.
Examiners did comment on a number of unnecessarily gruesome and gory stories. It was felt
that these were perhaps influenced by themes on contemporary television, films and
computer games. These unpleasant plots sometimes struggled to maintain focus on the title.
Occasionally candidates were over-ambitious, producing extremely long responses with

complicated plot-lines. Often candidates chose to reveal the difficult decision at the end of
their writing and, whilst in some cases this appeared to be a deliberate strategy, examiners
commented that sometimes it seemed to be an afterthought.
Most candidates were able to communicate clearly, with an appropriate sense of purpose
and some apt use of form, tone and register. They were able to create a narrative with a
central plot device and believable characters. They tried to bring the qualities of surprise,
drama, suspense and excitement to their narratives. There were attempts to include
flashbacks, dialogue, character and setting descriptions.
More successful candidates were able to write entertaining and engaging responses that
were sharply focused on the task. These responses had fewer characters which were well-
developed and a well-thought-out plot, designed to entertain. They were convincing with
believable dialogue and well-constructed plot lines. They were able to use figurative
techniques and wide-ranging vocabulary deliberately to achieve particular effects for their
reader. These responses were tightly plotted and covered a limited timescale.

Less successful candidates lacked development of ideas or the ability to maintain a narrative
or tended to write basic narratives without any great awareness of form, tone and register.
They struggled with clarity, with over-complicated or muddled storylines and weak endings
that were not closely related to the events that had unfolded. Their responses were often
lengthy with repetitive and unfocused plot ideas. Sometimes the difficult decision was added
at the end of the story with little sign-posting making the response to the title tenuous.
Examiners commented that some less successful responses seemed to be a prepared story
which they barely adapted for the given title.
Centres need to ensure candidates have a secure understanding of narrative techniques and
the ability to develop a coherent personal response without relying on plots from other
sources.
AO5
Most candidates were able to develop and express information and ideas in suitable way
effect.


bands.

AO4: This is an engaging, perceptive and well-crafted response. The
candidate is in control of structure and tone throughout and the idea
of the difficult decision is used as an effective ending, showing
sophisticated use of form. The overall effect is subtle and perceptive
and leaves the reader wanting to know more. Mark = 20, Level 5.
AO5: The candidate uses a range of structural devices to sustain

interest throughout, shifting effectively between shorter and longer
sentences and paragraphs. A range of punctuation is used to create
varied sentence structures for specific effect. Vocabulary is precise and
used strategically to create effects. Mark = 10, Level 5.
Think about how the narrative is cleverly controlled and engages the
reader. The opening sentence immediately grabs the reader's
attention. Note the wide variety of sentence structures used.

Question 11
AO4
Some candidates produced well-written responses that were fully focused on the task of
describing a favourite walk. However examiners also commented that a significant number
of candidates did not focus on the descriptive nature of the task and wrote narrative
responses focusing on re-telling the events of a day out rather that describing the walk itself.
Candidates chose a range of walks to describe. Some candidates focused on current walks
they take, normally to school or to the shops with their friends, whereas others discussed a
walk that had been particularly memorable for them in the past, eg a walk that they had
done on holiday, describing the exotic scenery. Some were very familiar landscapes, others
were more unusual, eg the walk to a concert, and some were based in fantasy. One
successful response, which described a daily walk to school in Kashmir, prompted one
examiner to comment on how privileged examiners are to get a glimpse of the lives of
others.
Most candidates were able to communicate clearly, with an appropriate sense of purpose
and some appropriate use of form, tone and register. Most responses focused at least
partially on description of a walk and were able to take the reader along on their walk,
although examiners commented that some responses were too narrative-like, with pockets
of description. Some described a scene, sometimes in some detail, without including details
of walking through the scene.
More successful candidates had been prepared for the requirements of this response and
often demonstrated a focused and sustained attempt at crafting a piece of description.
These candidates employed a range of techniques appropriately, managing to create a sense
of movement along the walk, describing what was seen and experienced along the way.
Some pieces had an impressive range of vocabulary, clearly painting a picture with their
words. They maintained a clear focus on describing a walk using visual and auditory
experiences.
Less successful responses were often undeveloped or unclear. These responses often
struggled to describe the walk and were often narrative-like. They spent so much time on
getting to the walk that the description or account of the walk was limited to a few lines or a
paragraph. Some seemed to use a prepared essay of a described scene and did not make it
relevant to the idea of a walk.
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

Most candidates were able to develop and express information and ideas in suitable way
effect.

bands.

This is a successful response to Question 11.

AO4: The candidate communicates successfully and there is a secure
realisation of purpose. There is some effective use of form, tone and
register and some crafting of sentences and structure such as ‘I come
to a formidable (although small in size) forest…’ Mark = 16, Level 4.
AO5: There is some ambitious vocabulary, although there are quite a

lot of spelling errors. A wide range of features are used, such as
brackets and the short paragraphs. Some deliberate effect is created.
Mark = 7, Level 4.
Notice how the writer is fully focused on describing a walk using

descriptions of the experiences, sights and sounds.

Paper 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 from the texts 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 appropriately
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 the texts in response to Questions 3, 6 and 7
were not able to select and adapt relevant information for Question 8
did not write in an appropriate register in response to 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.

Grade boundaries
Grade boundaries for this, and all other papers, can be found on the website on this link:
https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/support/support-topics/results-certification/grade-
boundaries.html

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

4eb1 01 Pef 20230824

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4eb1 01 Pef 20230824

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4eb1 01 Pef 20230824

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examiners’ Report

Giving you insight to inform next steps

See students' scores for every exam question.

For more information on ResultsPlus, or to log in, visit www.edexcel.com/resultsplus. Your

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

Publications Code 4EB1_01_2306_ER

All the material in this publication is copyright

© Pearson Education Ltd 2023

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 2

3 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 4

5 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Examiners commented that most candidates demonstrated at least some understanding of

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 6

7 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 10

11 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Try to find a range of points from across the whole text.

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 12

13 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 14

Some examiners commented that candidates’ performance was similar to Question 3,

15 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 16

17 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 20

21 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 22

23 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 24

25 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 30

31 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Always remember to support your comparisons with examples from

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 32

33 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 34

35 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 36

AO4: The writing is perceptive, subtle and sharply focused on the

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 40

41 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

AO4 : The response is clearly communicated, but a lack of detail means

This response could have been improved by having a wider range of

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 42

Examiners commented positively on some candidates’ responses to this question. However

43 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Common errors commented on by examiners were: missing basic sentence punctuation;

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 44

45 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

AO5: The response is paragraphed appropriately and spelling is

Think about how more development of ideas and a more persuasive

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 48

Question 10 was the most popular question.

Occasionally candidates were over-ambitious, producing extremely long responses with

49 Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01

Common errors commented on by examiners were: missing basic sentence punctuation;

Int GCSE English Language B 4EB1 01 50

This is a very successful response to Question 10.