Across this sample of evidence, all the assessment focuses are not simultaneously addressed within one response; each piece of work deals with a different type of text and so concentrates on what the pupil identifies as key features (within the constraints of specified tasks). Hence, there is some variability between responses in terms of the AFs and criteria that are fulfilled. In most cases, there is evidence of increasing precision in selection and application of textual references to the point being made (AF2 L7) and this ability to engage closely with texts enables the pupil to draw on imaginative insights to develop a coherent interpretation of texts (AF 2/3 L8), especially in the poetry response and the comparison of Coketown and La Paz.
In these two pieces of work there is also to be found detailed discussion and evaluation of aspects of language showing a clear appreciation of how language may support a writer's purpose and contribute to meaning (AF 4/5 L8). There is more limited evidence of understanding of features of structure and organisation, although the Van Helsing review offers comments on how a range of features relating to organisation at text level contribute to the effects achieved (AF4 L6) from the perspective of a media text. In the extended discussion of the poems and the two towns, writers’ purposes and viewpoints are at times investigated quite closely with some analytic and critical evaluation of how these are established and the techniques and devices that contribute to their impact upon the reader (AF6 L7/8) and fulfilment of these criteria is confirmed by the Jeremy Clarkson review demonstrating the same skills but from the standpoint of an overview.
Finally, some analysis of how different meanings and interpretations of a text relate to the context in which it is written (AF7 L7) is found in the discussion of the two poems.
There are level 8 judgements for AFs 2/3, 4/5 and 6. This meets the minimum requirements for the level. Although the level 8 criteria are regularly met across a range of texts, they are not always securely or consistently fulfilled. Hence the overall level judgement for this collection is low level 8.
