Narrative Writing (Paper 2): Examiner Report 3

 

Narrative Writing

 

 

3 (a) Write a story which involves finding an unusual object.

 

The first question elicited some engaging stories which included some interesting settings where the ‘unusual object’ was found. Many responses involved settings such as attics and cellars as well as a number of abandoned houses. The object itself ranged from ancient artefacts and magical items to top hats and other objects that remained unknown to the end. In better responses there was a clear resolution to the narrative as well as some control of tension and suspense to shape the reader’s reactions. Better responses also clearly focused attention on characterisation, objects and setting. Some responses moved from the title to go on to establish the scene and the object requiring explanation and then move backwards in time to create the plot structure of the narrative. This control of chronology required some skill in story-telling which was often evident in good responses

 

Middle range stories were characteristically straightforward in structure and approach and in some cases, although the characterisation was effective and credible, the piece overall lacked narrative progression and drive. One feature noticed by Examiners was the tendency to evoke quite convincingly the location and the unusual object but without a real story. These responses were effective descriptions but little happened to the characters and there was no real plot or narrative cohesion.

 

Some responses relied too heavily on dialogue without narration and the plotlines were simple, linear accounts with less awareness of the needs of the reader being shown.

 

 

3 (b) Write a story about a character who wants to make some kind of change.

The second narrative task was completed by the largest number of candidates in this particular paper with marks being awarded across the range for both of these titles.

 

For the second narrative question, the type of change that was deemed necessary by the character was open to interpretation and there were many options developed and these were developed with varying success and credibility.

 

The best were those which had a ring of authenticity about them and where there was a build-up or preparation which helped in creating a believable and effective narrative. There were some interesting narratives dealing with either changes within an individual or changes on a global scale.

 

Other responses were characterised by less effective, more contrived narratives or by less control over the material. Responses given marks in Band 4 were particularly dominated by events, some of them rather unlikely, while Band 3 marks usually reflected very brief accounts with very little to engage the reader in terms of characters and setting. A number of responses demonstrated little attempt to develop character or setting. Fantasy battles between warring superheroes trying to change events in the galaxy tended to move in this direction.

 

Some stories became a series of events which did not really cohere and in a few cases there was little sequencing or overall clarity. A few responses gave a factual documentary analysis of a change that was felt to be necessary with very little sense of narrative content, structure or development.

 

 

 

High marks for Style and Accuracy were given for responses where the writing was lively and varied in vocabulary and where different sentence structures were controlled and used to create particular effects. Punctuation within sentences, in dialogue and for effect was characteristic of responses in the higher Bands and where coupled with a sophisticated palette of vocabulary, the highest marks were given. For 10 and above, a degree of fluency was needed as well as a clarity and accuracy of style.

 

Errors in sentence control and separation, as well as lapses in tenses, if persistent, limited even competently told stories to Band 4, as did frequent errors in basic punctuation or grammar. In many scripts, the punctuation of direct speech was insecure, even when the story itself was quite well-structured. Again, basic punctuation errors with misused or omitted capital letters, the mis-spelling of simple words and wrongly selected homophones appeared in otherwise competent writing and were sometimes so frequent as to affect the mark for Style and Accuracy. A controlled, competent style secured a mark in Band 5 and even where candidates wrote in a fairly pedestrian style but punctuated sentences accurately, Examiners could award a mark of 7 or 8. Where there were still errors but the style had more ambition and variety, a mark of 9 was awarded. Weaknesses in constructing sentences, comma-splicing or frequent basic spelling and punctuation errors resulted in marks below Band 5. A few responses were very brief and faulty in style, making it difficult to follow the meaning. These were given marks lower than Band 4.

 

Ways in which the writing of narratives can be improved:

 

·         think about the build-up towards the most important moment in your story

·         try to consider alternative interpretations of the titles given; do not try to make a story fit the title if the ideas used are not appropriate

·         characters’ thoughts and feelings help to engage your reader; do not rely on events

·         check your writing for errors which will badly affect your mark, such as basic spelling and punctuation mistakes.