DeltaModuleTwoReport2012

An assessors comment, for example, is:

3a) The analysis contains much that is relevant but also much that is not. There
is discussion of the writing process in general and then definitions of editing.
Editing is analysed in terms of revising content, organisation and sentences.
However, without a focus on a specific essay type or genre, comments are too
general and are not supported with specific examples.

Problems are also caused by simply inadequate or inaccurate analysis. Examples from this
year include falsely attributing a selection of transitive phrasal verbs as intransitive, calling
adjectives adverbs (and vice versa) and many examples of incomplete, arguable or plainly
inaccurate phonemic transcriptions.
The grade profile for a Pass Background Essay includes:
The analysis of the area and the discussion of learning problems and teaching
issues are mostly accurate, cover some key points and show reasonable and
generally accurate understanding supported by reference to key sources and
relevant classroom experience and observation.

Seriously inaccurate analysis of the area in focus invariably leads to a fail grade for the
Background Essay.
Criterion 3b is only slightly less problematic than 3a. The reasons for this criterion being
recorded as Not met are almost always of three kinds:
i.
ii.
iii.

Problems for learners are falsely identified or faultily described

There is a lack of focus on a range of problems and contexts relevant to the essay topic
Problems are not described in sufficient detail with a lack of exemplification

Examples from this year include discussion of a learner difficulties with dummy subjects (in an
essay focused on phrasal verbs), falsely identifying normal uses of prepositions with problems
forming phrasal verbs, focusing on only two issues and stating problems in an
overgeneralised manner (for example, that novice writers have difficulty with text
organisation).
Section 4
This section of the criteria for the Background Essay contains three out of the four most
frequently Not met criteria and is the most problematic section of all. The criteria are:
4.

Suggestions for teaching: Successful candidates demonstrate that they can

effectively draw on experience and research to:
a)

outline and show familiarity with relevant key procedures, techniques,

resources and/or materials

b)

evaluate how the selected procedures, techniques, resources and or

materials might be used effectively in classroom practice

c)

demonstrate how the procedures, techniques, resources and/or

materials address points raised under 'Analysis and issues'.

Criterion 4c
This is the criterion most frequently recorded as Not met in failed Background Essays.
The single most important reason for assessors noting this criterion as Not met is the failure
to link the suggestions to the identification of issues for learners and the analysis. There
needs to be an explicit and clearly discernible follow-through from the identification of learner
problems to linked teaching suggestions.
Criterion 4a
For the Background Essay, this is the second most frequently recorded Not met criterion.
A key reason for this is a failure to note the term relevant in the criterion.
Typical issues identified by assessors are:
i.
ii.

Over-generalised discussion, for example, referring to a whole coursebook as a

teaching suggestion
Inadequate description of suggestions with only vague outlines of what is proposed
Page12of12

DeltaModuleTwoReport2012

iii.
iv.
v.

Lack of exemplification and explanation

Lack of variety and range of ideas, e.g., with all suggestions focusing on one issue or
one aspect of the issue such as awareness raising or written practice
Lack of focus on any level(s) identified in the title or introduction to the essay

A representative assessor comment in this area is:

4a This criterion is not met because the candidate has not shown that the
activities he proposes target issues to do with the organisation of written texts.
Mention is made, for example, of the need to encourage students to read widely
and be exposed to the organisational structure of various genres but no ideas are
given for how the process of genre analysis is conducted or of what specific
features the students are expected to discuss.

Less frequently, it is an obvious lack of familiarity with the ideas suggested which leads to a
Not met entry. The following comment from an assessor identifies both the problems
prevalent under this criterion.
Published materials were referred to but again the impression is not given that the
candidate has used them (4a).
He also drifts into the area of written forms
e. g., negative inversion and the passive when talking about classroom issues,
but the whole point of the assignment is to do with spoken grammar.

Criterion 4b
This criterion is often Not met for the simple reason that no, or far too little and vague,
evaluation of the suggestions for teaching is attempted.
Common issues are:
i.
ii.
iii.

Including material in appendices which is not described or evaluated in the text

Unsupported claims concerning the efficacy of approaches and materials
Superficial evaluation along the lines of this is a good exercise which helps learners
understand

Even when this criterion is not recorded as Not met, it is often only Partially met as this
assessor comment indicates:
4b: Suggestions are insufficiently explained and therefore what the evaluation
sections are referring to is often unclear. Evaluation also relies on reference to
sources rather than being based the candidates own experience or intuition.

It is not infrequent for all criteria in Section 4 to be recorded as Not met:

Summary of advice to centres and candidates concerning the Background Essay criteria:
Candidates need to ensure that the Background Essay has been properly proof read, is
acceptably organised and coherent.
Centres should be clear from the outset of the course that a failure to meet Criterion 1a often
results in a Fail grade overall for the Background Essay because the candidates ideas are
obscured by poor expression and coherence.
Centres should require resubmission of essays which do not meet criterion 1a, or record them
as Fail grades, if the writers meaning is obscured.
Candidates need to address criteria 2d and 2e explicitly so that linkage between sections
and relevance is maintained. Essays should not require the reader to make the links.
When selecting a focus for the assignment, candidates need to consider carefully whether
their choice will allow them to demonstrate an adequate depth of analysis.
Centres need to train candidates in the selection of focus for assignments and to screen
candidates proposed assignment titles from the outset of a course.
Centres need to continue to be vigilant that candidates essay titles for skills-focused
assignments do not lead them to a discussion of methodology rather than an analysis of the
skill(s).
Candidates need to consider a range of settings and issues effectively to meet criterion 3b.
Page13of13

DeltaModuleTwoReport2012

Centres and candidates need to focus very clearly on meeting the criteria in Section 4. This
means:
o

Describing a range of relevant suggestions

Evaluating their effectiveness by drawing on research and experience

Explicitly linking the suggestions to the problems identified and the analysis
presented.

7. Part 2 Planning, teaching and reflection

Here again, the focus will be on the criteria which have been identified above as causing the most
serious or frequent problems for candidates. The criteria which form the bulk of this focus are in
Sections 7, 8 and 10 but some consideration will be given to the sole criterion in the planning
section which is clearly causing problems 5c and to two frequently Not met criteria, 9a and 9d.
Criterion 5c
This is the only criterion in the planning section which is Not met almost as frequently as those in
Sections 7 and 8. The key reason for entering Not met in this area given by assessors is a failure
by the candidate accurately to analyse the language relevant to the lesson. The other important
reason for including 5c here is that assessors often note that candidates who do not adequately
analyse the target language or skill in the plan are ill prepared to meet criterion 7d (demonstrating
the ability to give accurate and appropriate information about language form, meaning/use and
pronunciation and/or language skills/subskills) in the lesson, and this is the criterion which is the
most frequently entered as Not met of all the teaching criteria.
Typical assessor comments include:
5c There is some superficial description of features of skills in terms of
language but no real information on discourse, form or phonology. Items appear
at fragment level. There is no real analysis.

There is no analysis of the discoursal features of paragraph writing (5c).

There are errors in the analysis with regard to transitive and intransitive verbs.

There is no analysis of the target language (5c).

The criteria in Section 7

Section 7 is narrowly the second most problematic area for candidates but it includes the criterion
most frequently entered as Not met by assessors (7d). The criteria are:
7. Understanding, knowledge and explanation of language and language skills
Successful candidates demonstrate that they can effectively:
a)

use language which is accurate and appropriate for the teaching and
learning context

b)

adapt their own use of language to the level of the group and individuals
in the group

c)

give accurate and appropriate models of language form, meaning/use

and pronunciation

d)

give accurate and appropriate information about language form,

meaning/use and pronunciation and/or language skills/subskills

e)

notice and judiciously exploit learners language output to further

language and skills/subskills development.

When criteria 7a and 7b are Not met, they are often Not met in tandem through candidates
simply being unable to modify their own production to take account of the learners level.
Such failure also impinges on criterion 6a (showing sensitivity to the learners level). 7a is
very rarely Not met because of an inability to use adequately accurate language. Likewise,

Page14of14