Download GCSE - WJEC

GCSE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
SOCIOLOGY (LEGACY)
SUMMER 2010
Statistical Information
The Examiners' Report may refer in general terms to statistical outcomes. Statistical
information on candidates' performances in all examination components (whether internally
or externally assessed) is provided when results are issued. As well as the marks achieved
by individual candidates, the following information can be obtained from these printouts:
For each component: the maximum mark, aggregation factor, mean mark and standard
deviation of marks obtained by all candidates entered for the examination.
For the subject or option: the total entry and the lowest mark needed for the award of each
grade.
Annual Statistical Report
Other information on a centre basis is provided when results are issued. The annual
Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall outcomes of
all examinations administered by WJEC.
SOCIOLOGY (LEGACY)
General Certificate of Secondary Education Summer 2010
Chief Examiner:
Janis Griffiths BA Hons, PGCE, M.Ed., Dip Ed.Man
General Remarks
This is the final year of the legacy GCSE examination. Despite this, we have had another
increase in the number of centres taking the examination. The standard achieved overall
has been high despite the fact that centres have not all been familiar with the demands of
the specification. Again, there has also been a significantly higher entry for the Higher tier
than the Foundation tier, reflecting the quality of the entry. From evidence taken from the
scripts, there seems to be some mis-entry of candidates for the appropriate tiers. On the
Foundation tier paper, the highest grade available is a C. Some candidates obtained marks
on the Foundation paper that could have been worth higher grades had they been available.
Equally, on the Higher tier paper, there was some entry of candidates who were unwilling
and unable to write in an extended fashion. It is the ability to write lengthy answers that is
the differentiator between the two tiers and as a result these candidates will have gained a U
grade.
Some excellent scripts were submitted by centres and the level of Sociological skills was
very high. There was clear evidence that candidates had been thoroughly prepared for the
examination. Even the weakest candidates were able to display evidence of sociological
knowledge. This proved to be a feature of this year’s cohort, where there was reference to
studies and to sociological language. Candidates were often able to do well on the
compulsory questions where short answers are demanded, but were not able to achieve the
same high standards in the option answers. Candidates are writing clear and careful accounts
of sociological debates and in many cases, supporting analytical accounts with evidence
drawn from theory and from research. Even weaker candidates were sometimes able to
achieve creditable marks by using their time well and writing in detail about social phenomena.
Again there were a few foundation tier papers that were marred by rubric errors this year.
Family and education were the favoured topics in section A; there was an increase in the
number of responses to the question on work and leisure though some were from centres
where other candidates had all chosen another option. Social class and Crime and
Deviance were popular options in section B for many candidates at both higher and
foundation tier. In general, all were well attempted, with some very creditable responses.
Centres are to be congratulated on the extent to which candidates referred to named writers
and sociologists and to basic theory in GCSE papers. Again, among the higher achieving
candidates, recent studies and in some cases, reference to current political events was also
evident, though not to the extent of last year’s cohort. There was less anecdotal reference
to candidates’ own personal lives this year; this is positive. Candidates often fail to make
personal commentary relevant and only the most confident are able to achieve the skills of
making personal commentary relevant and pertinent to the questions. Again, few
candidates referred to their own coursework. It is rewarded where it is relevant to the
question asked. Stronger candidates were confident in their use of sociological terms and in
referring to sociological concepts. There is a considerable amount of information on the
paper that candidates can use in support of answers and it was pleasing that some did make
use of this material to develop their responses in a synoptic fashion.
1
Again, there were a number of particular points that teachers may wish to raise with their
candidates and which did stand out in the examining conference.

Many candidates are unfamiliar with terms on the specification. There are still those who
were unaware of the meaning of the term socialisation. When question as to its
meaning, they responded correctly, but when using the term as part of an answer, many
used it in the sense of being social. Some candidates use phrases such as ‘in my
opinion…’ and ‘I think…’ or ‘I believe…’. This is not acceptable in sociology which is a
discipline based on the deployment of evidence to support evaluations.

Sometimes responses to extended writing questions were very narrow and overdependent on the item or equally, did not refer to the items at all. This meant that
opportunities to display depth of understanding were lost.

Where candidates were required to use the items in response to the questions, some
simply copied the relevant bit of the passage. It is necessary to show that some degree
of understanding has been achieved, so it may be advisable to warn candidates to
process the relevant material.

Candidates may well be advised to leave a line or two between their answers as it is
easy to overlook a mark when marking, if work is cramped. However, there were fewer
candidates adding little bits of writing to margins and at the end of the examination
papers.
Coursework
The quality of coursework was very good this year, with fewer centres allowing candidates to
study inappropriate, unethical or non-sociological topics.
Administration this year was generally good too. Most centres sent carefully wrapped
parcels with the correct sample neatly identified and carefully annotated by the markers and
internal moderators from centres. Some work was submitted late and this is inconvenient. It
might have been appropriate for centres to let us know when this is likely to occur so that we
do not have to chase centres. Moderators are working to a very tight deadline for submitting
judgements. Obviously, with the loss of coursework from the assessment process, this is no
longer an issue for either centres or the WJEC.
Whilst coursework will no longer be directly examined from 2010, the board advises that it
remains incorporated into teaching sequences so that candidates have personal experience
of conducting research and can refer to that experience in their written answers. It was clear
from marking unit 1 of the new specification that this was an area of weakness.
Higher Tier - General Observations
There were some excellent scripts this year with some candidates gaining very high marks.
Many candidates had been well prepared by centres and again, showed high levels of
sociological knowledge. Most showed confidence in the use of sociological language and a
willingness to apply it, which demonstrates that this element of the subject is well developed
in centres. There are those who used the term working class as though it meant ‘people
who have jobs’ rather than anything more sophisticated. Some candidates used the term
socialisation in terms of being social with friends and family. Clearly, these concepts are not
fully understood by many able candidates.
2
Better candidates were able to incorporate examples, reference to studies and even,
sometimes, reference to theories such as feminism or Marxism into their extended essays.
Whilst reference to theory is not essential, it is welcomed if it is used appropriately.
Teachers are reminded that theoretical understandings will become more important in the
new 2010 specification and therefore it should be built into lesson planning. All evidence of
sociological knowledge was credited, even if it was drawn from elsewhere on the paper.
Disorganisation sometimes makes marks difficult to discover and so well-planned writing is
always welcomed by the examining team. There was less evidence of bullet point answers
this year and again few candidates copied out questions.
Particular areas worthy of comment
Q.1
Candidates handled this section of the paper well. Candidates have high levels of
analytical skill; this suggests that they have been well prepared for this part of the
examination. Again, many candidates achieved far better on the data analysis
questions than on the questions that referred to sociological language,
misunderstanding ‘stereotype’ in question 1(h) in particular. Where candidates only
gained one of the two marks available on two mark questions it was because they
failed to develop their answers fully or failed to offer appropriate examples.
There was some degree of confusion among weaker candidates in 1(d). Candidates
were asked to ‘Explain one sociological reason ...’. There was a tendency to write
about a number of reasons, rather than to explain one. This may be an area for
consideration when preparing candidates for the new specification where there will
be more of this type of question relating to socialisation.
Q.2
This was the most popular option choice this year as it is most years, and generally
best answered by those who had revised the topic fully. Where candidates understood
the nature of the question relating to functions of the family, there were some excellent
answers. Unfortunately, many struggled with the meaning of this question and so
wrote personalised material that was based on common sense and not on sociology.
Q.3
This was extremely well tackled by many candidates who were familiar with the
correct sociological terminology used in the questions. Question 3(a) had many
responses which talked about educational success in gender terms rather than
relating it to examination success or learning. Clearly the item was being used, but
not actually processed in any way. Question 3(d) elicited responses that simply
juxtaposed middle class and working class. One or two candidates juxtaposed
middle class with the elites in society and while it was accepted, did not accord with
the spirit of the question.
Q.4
This was not a popular option this year despite the accessibility of the question.
Those who had revised did very well, but many had chosen this as an alternative to
the option studied within their centres and had little or no concept of the term
alienation.
Q.5
This question was generally answered very well. The ability of candidates to process
data and to take information from graphs suggests that they have been taught these
skills to a high standard.
Question 5(e) was an issue in that very many candidates had little understanding of
why inequality is a problem for society. Some were a little vague about the meaning
of wealth. Otherwise, question 5(g) was generally well answered with candidates
recognising some social groups who are vulnerable and then clearly identifying social
features that make them vulnerable to disadvantage.
3
Q.6
This generally well handled. Though some struggled to recognise the link between
occupation and social class.
Q.7
There were virtually no responses to this question despite it being a relatively
straightforward question.
Q.8
This was popular and generally very well answered. There was a general focus on
how social control is maintained. The best candidates were able to recognise the
various forms of social control and also the types of rules which with control is
maintained.
Foundation Tier
Many of the remarks made in response to the higher tier paper are pertinent to this section
of the report. The quality of many papers was exceptionally high. Examiners felt that many
candidates had been wrongly entered for this tier paper. Candidates responded well to
some challenging questions so that again this year, there were remarkably few papers
where candidates had not made a reasonable attempt to answer the questions. There were
some very short responses to the extended questions which made it difficult to find marks.
Family and crime were the most popular options. Again, it was notable that the paper this
year brought out a number of proselytising answers. This was possibly because of the
range of topics covered. The tendency to begin every answer with ‘In my opinion…’ was
strongly marked and viewed by examiners as very retrograde.
Q.1
Most candidates, who generally managed to gain high marks, handled this very well.
The ability of some quite low ability candidates to process data and to understand
what they are reading suggests that they have been taught the skills of analysis to a
high standard. Marks were generally lost through lack of familiarity with sociological
terms, underdevelopment of answers and through basic misunderstandings. Many
candidates were unaware of the meaning of the concept, ‘stereotype’.
Q.2
This was generally well handled, though many candidates offered personal accounts
of why family life is seen as important.
Q.3
This was generally well answered.
Q.4
This was not a popular question and very few candidates attempted it. Those who
did, and who had been prepared, achieved good grades.
Q.5
This question was generally answered very well indeed. The ability of candidates to
process data and to take information from graphs and written data suggests that they
have been taught these skills to a high standard.
Q.6
Answers to this question were not especially detailed and candidates often wrote
about the elite classes to the exclusion of other social classes. Those who
understood the topic wrote well about underclass, but otherwise, this was not
handled well, despite the clue in the term itself.
Q.7
There were no pertinent responses to question 7 despite its accessibility
Q.8
This was a popular question and generally well handled. In most cases, candidates
had been extremely well prepared for this section of the syllabus.
GCSE Sociology (Legacy) Examiners Report - Summer 2010 /KB
15/10/2010
4
WJEC
245 Western Avenue
Cardiff CF5 2YX
Tel No 029 2026 5000
Fax 029 2057 5994
E-mail: [email protected]
website: www.wjec.co.uk