What are the biggest issues that students who sat the exam in 2017 encountered?

Lack of planning in students’ answers is an issue, just as it has been in the past.

We know that teachers already offer students advice to counter this; recommendations to plan written responses carefully, to check thoroughly for errors and to make sure the response is actually answering the purpose of the question are nothing new.

The challenge for teachers is to make sure that this advice is not taken for granted, that students know how to plan for their written responses effectively and have the resilience to do so in timed conditions.

So, how are teachers supposed to make their recommendations stick?

It is important to remember that the key word in the mark schemes for written responses is “communication”.

Sharing the mark scheme for assessment objective 5 (AO5) with students can be helpful. This outlines how students will be assessed on their ability to communicate according to the keywords for each of the mark scheme levels:

• simple, limited communication (Level 1: 1-6 marks)
• some successful communication (Level 2: 7-12 marks)
• clear and consistent communication (Level 3: 13-18 marks)
• convincing and compelling communication (Level 4: 19-24 marks)

Once the examiner has determined which level the student falls into, they will fine-tune within that level, according to specific skills descriptors.

If students think and plan the ideas that they wish to communicate before they begin to write, then the structural design of their communication is likely to be much improved. Using revision sessions to demonstrate the processes that students should follow in planning the structure of their written responses can support them to better communicate their ideas in the exam. 

What are these planning processes?

Planning is much more than a quick spider graph - it’s about the thoughtful arrangement of ideas, the key points that need to be made for each idea and consideration about how to prepare a response that is consciously crafted.

It’s also about how editing retrospectively to refine a written response is equally important - and perfectly acceptable - in exam conditions.

How do I teach them?

Planning written responses takes practice, and there is no simple trick for teaching it.

It takes dedicated time where the approach is modelled. It takes carefully organised group discussion. It requires an appreciation of how the approach is valuable in crafting a response, rather than writing a first attempt without much preparation.

Such focus on crafting needs to be taught explicitly. While you can cover this in revision sessions, a better approach is to embed in your English curriculum, so that students have time to really develop an appreciation of the processes.

It’s worth reflecting on where a focus on planning happens in your schemes of work for Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4, how it happens and how students respond to the instruction “plan your answer before you start writing”.

Is there anything else that I need to make students aware of?

The reading questions on both AQA papers in section A have been designed to support students with their responses in section B. For example, paper 1 question 3 encourages students to think increasingly about structure.

If students can apply what they learn about how writers structure texts to their own creative writing, this will help to improve the quality of their responses.

The two writing responses across both papers are worth half of the entire value of the exam. The point made in our Chief Examiner’s Report about crafting is one that requires attention and is advice worth heeding: “write less, craft more.”

Examples of crafted writing in their draft form are a useful tool to demonstrate that even the best writers plan, edit and review their own work. 

Deborah Pearson is head of English at exam board and education charity AQA.