Section E Practical Skills for Work and Study

In this year's paper, candidates were required to assume the role of an employee at an extreme sports company.
They were asked to complete two writing tasks for the company: to write a 500-word report and a 150-word
reply email. They had a variety of texts from which to select information to complete the tasks.
Task l
In Task 1, candidates were required to write a 500-word report for the company manager to attach to his reply
to an enquiry about summer activities. Candidates were told to cover the following information regarding the
three activities: cost per person and what is included in the price; a description of the activities; special skills
needed for each activity; and the benefits of each. Based on the information and the requirements of the
client, candidates were asked to make a recommendation. Candidates were free to decide the sequencing of
the different pieces of information. The Data File included a variety of texts for this task: an email, a blog web
page, a leaflet, a web page, an interview excerpt, an online forum and a press release article.
This task assessed candidates' ability to comprehend the source data, locate relevant content points and
interpret and present them in order to fulfill the task requirements as well as their ability to write accurately
and to organise the report in a reader-friendly manner.
Candidates' mean score for this task was 54.8%, slightly higher than that for Task 2 which was 49.6%. There
follows a discussion of candidates' performance in the different aspects of the task.
Content points
Of the 40 content points, twelve (1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.11, 1.12, 1.15, 1.18, 1.22, 1.28, 1.33 and 1.37) were
awarded to at least 75% of candidates. Among the seven sections that candidates were required to include
information in this task, the majority managed well in 'extras which are not included in the price' (83%-88%),
'how much it costs per person' (57%-85% ) and 'what is included in the price' (62%-75%, apart from 1.14
(27%)). Performance in the section 'benefits of each activity' was the poorest with only 4%-6% of candidates
being awarded a point for 1.8, 1.30, 1.32 and 25%-55% for the other points.
Candidates' performance in the different sections may also have been related to the skills assessed in each
section. Among the 40 content points, 28 required candidates to locate the points, comprehend the source data
and incorporate them into their own writing by adapting the language. These skills may be considered to be
more straight-forward than other skills assessed in this task, such as interpretation of source data and
synthesising different source texts.
Of these 28 content points, 18 were successfully located by more than half of the candidates. The remaining
10 content points proved to be more challenging for candidates. This may have been due to difficulties in
comprehending the source data, selecting the right information and/or adapting their language effectively.
Candidates' performance in the sections 'what is included in the price' and 'benefits of each activity'
demonstrates such weaknesses. To locate points for the section 'what is included in the price', candidates were
required to comprehend a commercial leaflet stating different prices for different courses. In the leaflet, a
remark stating 'insurance included unless otherwise specified' was provided. Only 27% of candidates were
awarded 1.14. The remaining 73% of the candidates failed to demonstrate an understanding of the fact that the
absence of a footnote for insurance costs meant that it was included in the price. In the 'benefits of each
activity' section, four content points (1.9, 1.19, 1.29 and 1.31) were not gained by the majority of the
candidates. Many located the content points but failed to adapt their language effectively. 1.29 is a typical
example of this. The source text stated that '[freerunning]'s a great sport 'cause [participants] need to develop
physical strength'. Readers of a report that included 'you need to develop physical strength' may well have
interpreted this as a requirement rather than a benefit of freerunning.
Content points missed by at least 93% of candidates included those that required them to comprehend a text in
order to generalize; to interpret information; or to synthesize information from several pieces of texts. These
points were not necessarily explicitly signposted and often required a fuller comprehension of the Data File
and of the task requirements. Candidates were also required to have sufficient lexical resources to express the
ideas appropriately.

Content points 1.8, 1.30 and 1.32 were three such points. For instance, one of the source texts, a blog,
describes the first coasteering experience of the writer. The whole text illustrates the joy the writer had when
he overcame his fear (1.8). The overall message is very straightforward but the vast majority of candidates
failed to include the idea 'overcoming fear' as one of the benefits of coasteering, preferring instead to copy or
adapt phrases from the text. Similarly, many either missed 1.30 and/or 1.32 or copied chunks with no
interpretation.
Content points 1.36 and 1.39 required candidates to synthesize information from several pieces of texts.
Candidates were required to have understood the client's requirements and make recommendations
accordingly. Point 1.36 is a justification of why freerunning has not been recommended- not enough trainers
for the group of 20 pupils. Point 1.39 is a justification of why coasteering has been recommended - the age of
the prospective participants meeting the age requirement. Many of the candidates who were not awarded
these points copied parts from the Data File which were relevant to these points but which in themselves were
not sufficient for them to be awarded the mark due to their failure to synthesize the information in a way that
made the information salient to the task.
Relevance, tone and appropriacy of text type
As in previous years, the Data File included materials which were both relevant and irrelevant for the
completion of the task. To fulfill the task requirement, candidates were required to include only relevant
information. Around 44% of candidates achieved this. Those who were not awarded this point included
irrelevant information which may have undermined the effectiveness of the report. For instance, many
included the price for half-day packages, this despite the enquiry having stated clearly that they would like to
get a recommendation for a one day activity. Similarly, although the enquiry asked the company to provide
details about coasteering, mountain biking and freerunning, very weak candidates included other activities
such as abseiling as well. Such irrelevant information would be likely to cause confusion for the reader and
possibly question the company's general competence.
Another aspect which was included in order to test candidates' ability to write an effective report was that of
appropriacy of tone. Around 65% of candidates were judged to have maintained an appropriate tone
throughout, i.e. a fairly formal and impersonal tone with the use of objective language. Candidates also needed
to make sure that they were not overly critical of the two activities which had not been recommended as such
criticism would be incongruent with a company describing its own products. Weaker candidates lifted
verbatim from the source data and included phrases carrying an inappropriate tone for a report such as 'all the
thrills of ... ', 'throw in a bit of ... ', '... to come out of their shell', 'cool', 'really amazing' etc. Inappropriate
tone was also noted in scripts that used phrases that were too personal like 'I am Jacky Lee', 'Thank you for
choosing Xtreme Sports', 'Hope this helps '.
Another assessment domain was the appropriacy of text type. Around 64% of the candidates were judged to
have used text features appropriate to a report. This included the use of section headings and/or the inclusion
of a title for the report together with a statement of purpose and/or background of the report in the
introduction. Some used numbered or lettered sections, lead-ins and bullet points within sections. Those
candidates who were not awarded the point very often produced a text which resembled an essay or a letter.
Coherence and cohesion
As practised last year, a detailed scale for this aspect of performance was developed in order to facilitate the
discrimination between candidates who produced an incoherent text (with the superficial appearance of a
coherent text) by the use of certain common cohesive devices and those who used a variety of more
sophisticated cohesive devices to genuinely aid the coherence of the report. The mark distribution for
Coherence and cohesion was as follows: 0 marks- 9.2%; 1 mark- 59.9%; 2 marks- 27.6%; 3 marks- 3.3%.
Candidates who were more successful in this aspect used such devices as: announcing their goals and report
structure in the introduction; a clear title and headings; topic sentences or lead-in stems and consistent bullet
points. Only 3.3% of the candidates were judged to have used a range of cohesive devices successfully and
accurately. The performance of the stronger and the weaker groups can be demonstrated in the examples
below.

Stronger candidates used a range of methods to link the ideas in their report correctly:
'Report on coasteering, mountain biking and freerunning
Xtreme Sports organizes different group courses which can be half a day or whole day. Coasteering, mountain
biking and freerunning are three of the sports that we offer. For details of full-day courses for these sports,
please refer to the following information.
Mountain biking
Mountain biking is an off-road activity which requires bikers to go up hills and across streams, or even
through the woods. The fee for the whole day package is $900, which includes insurance, minibus pick up and
drop off, as well as packed lunch. The group ratio is one instructor to 10 participants. If necessary, you could
also add an extra $35 per person for helmet hire onto the basic price. The only special ability you need is
riding a bike. Mountain biking is a good opportunity for you to think things through on your own and it is also
a good exercise to help burn calories.
Weaker work was characterized by the use of mostly non-integrated connectives not always correctly used:
Summer trip (or Form Four students report.
Introduction
The report is written in order to recommend a one-day activity for F.4 students ...
Mountain biking
The cost of full day is $900. However, Helmet hire ($35 per person) is not included But prices included the
hire of the bike, minibus, and reasonable packed lunch. Moreover, the activity is an off-road activity, it has to
go up hills and across streams and through wood Also, students joining the activity will get very happy.
Because it can burn all calories in the body after doing all that exercise.
Grammatical range and accuracy
Candidates were assessed on their ability to manipulate the language from the source data to create
grammatically correct sentences through a wide variety of language adaptation/paraphrasing strategies. Such
strategies ranged from the mechanical changing of pronouns to more sophisticated strategies such as adjusting
the formality of the language and the synthesising of information from different sources. The mark
distribution for Grammatical range and accuracy was as follows: 0 marks- 14.5%; 1 mark- 50.5%; 2 marks30.4%; 3 marks- 4.6%. Around half of the candidates therefore can be characterised as adapting the language
simply by changing the word form, tense and/or pronouns. A total of 35% of the candidates wrote generally
accurately and used complex sentences when adapting. Only 4.6% of the candidates were judged to have
written highly accurately. The following example shows how stronger candidates manipulated phrases from
the Data File to create grammatically correct sentences through using a wide variety of changes made to the
original text.
'Coasteering is a challenging sport that involves adventure swimming, rock climbing and some jumping and
diving. The only special ability required is the ability to swim. The price for the half day package is $400
while for full day it is $700. The packages include a minibus pick up and drop off or all participants, packed
lunch, attention from qualified instructors and basic equipment such as buoyancy aid, waterproof bags,
wetsuits and helmets. The maximum participant to instructor ratio is one instructor to twelve people, larger
group sizes are also available on request. Also, participants should be 12 or over. The packages also include
$50 insurance per person. If you would like to add a safety boat, extra fee of $1000 would be required.
Coasteering is great for developing stamina and good for the upper body and cardiovascular system workout.
It also trains your teamwork and confidence. '
Though most scripts were intelligible, markers observed that many candidates still made mistakes at the basic
level. Common errors include number agreement, subject-verb agreement, tense, verb form, preposition, word
form and pronoun reference.

The following is an example of a candidate who uses little of his/her own language but when s/he does it is
characterised as having errors beyond simple sentences:

'Coasteering is a sport with all the thrills of adventure swimming. Participants need to throw in a bit of rock
climbing, followed by jumping and diving, and make your way from one part of the coast to the next. The price
of package of "Half Day" is $400 and "Full Day" is $700. There is an insurance, included unless otherwise
specified", $50 per each person and a extras price of a safety boat by $1000. Mini bus will pick up and drop
off the participants and packed lunch will provide. Moreover, we have the qualified instructors, such as
"Adventure Swimming Certificate holders", to make sure the safety and basic equipment will provide, namely
waterproof bags, buoyancy aid, wetsuits and helmets. All participants should over 12-year-old and swimming
is the specific abilities required A larger group size available in request. The benefit is that they can have a
team work and learned things like checking each other's helmets and the important to encourage each other. '
Task 2
Candidates' mean score for the whole task was 49.6%, indicating that this task was slightly more challenging
than Task 1 for most candidates.
In this task, candidates were asked to write a reply email to a complainant about an incident which occurred
during a group outing. The original email was addressed to the company manager and it questioned the safety
measures adopted by the company during the outing. The Data File included different texts for this task: an
email, two web pages and a hiking log. To fulfill the task requirement, candidates were required to
comprehend the key points of the complaint, locate relevant information and adapt the language in the format
of a response to the complaint.
Content points
The percentage of candidates who were awarded a point for each of the related content points in this task
ranged from 79% (2.5) to 4% (2.16). Candidates' mean score for the content points was 45.3%.
One key skill assessed in this task was the ability to adapt the language from source texts written for other
purposes in order to compile a reply to a complaint. The task successfully discriminated between strong,
average and weak candidates. Over two-thirds of the candidates managed to get points 2.2, 2.5 and 2.10. Less
than one third managed to get points 2.8, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16 and 2.20.
Among the seven required sections, the most challenging proved to be the section on 'Was adequate first aid
given? What did the guide do when the accident happened?' There were six content points available in this
section. Around 56% of candidates were awarded a point for 2.13, 46% for 2.12, 40% for 2.11, 23% for 2.14,
16% for 2.15 and 4% for 2.16. The average mean score for this section was only 30.8%. Two examples are
included here to demonstrate performance of stronger and weaker candidates.
A stronger candidate's work:
'During the incident, right after Vincent was hurt, Monica Lim immediately did the first aid and bandaged
his ankle. So there was sufficient first aid given. She also called the ambulance to play it safe. On the other
hand, Vincent was getting his camera out of his bag and fell over a stone on the path. She checked his leg
carefully and also asked him some simple questions like what his name was to check for concussion. The
whole procedure was smooth and correct according to the code of conduct. '
A weaker candidate's work:
'If people get hurt, the guide check their leg carefully but start asking them some pretty strange questions.
And then the guide would carry a first aid pack and everything- and until people feel well. Finally, the
guide will decide to get them to a hospital. '
The weak performance, apart from language issues, may be related to candidates' weaknesses in interpreting
the relevance or importance of source data. For 2.15, candidates seem to have had difficulties in
understanding the word 'concussion' in the Data File. Many simply copied verbatim '[the guide] started asking
him some pretty strange questions, like what his name was and if he knew which day of the week it was' from
the Data File. Such answers failed to synthesize the generic information from the code of conduct for hike
leaders in order to not only describe what the guide did during the incident but also explain the reasons why.
They also failed to evaluate the likely effect on the credibility of the company of insinuating that the guide
was guilty of some rather strange behaviour.

Two content points (2.19 and 2.20) assessed whether candidates were able to interpret the task requirements
sufficiently. As a reply to a complaint, there are conventions expected by the receiver. The email should have
started with a proper salutation (Dear Mrs Tardelli) and an accompanying valediction (Yours truly, Jacky Lee).
Failure to comply with the convention undermines the acceptability and credibility of the reply. Only 23% of
the candidates were successful in this aspect. Many started with 'Dear Mrs Edith Tardelli'. Weaker ones
seemed to be unaware of the convention or the context of the task and included salutations such as 'Dear
Edith', 'Dear Mr Tardelli' or 'Dear Mr Yeung' and valedictions such as 'Your truly, Mr Lee' or 'Eric Yeung'.
At the end of the reply, candidates should have included a finishing statement to help enhance the
effectiveness of the reply. Only 34% of the candidates were successful in this. Instead, many candidates wrote
something more reminiscent of a conclusion for an essay.
Relevance, tone and appropriacy of subject heading
In order to confirm if the writing purpose had been fulfilled, candidates were assessed on the relevance of their
content points, the appropriacy of their tone and the subject heading of their email.
Around 56% of candidates included only relevant information in the 150-word email reply to the complainant.
The remaining 44% included some irrelevant information such as other qualifications of the guide (paddle
instructor, adventure swimming, etc.) and names of the other hikers. Weaker ones were guilty again of
seemingly copying indiscriminately from the Data File.
Around 32% of candidates wrote a reply that was inappropriate due to such problems as being too abrupt.
Some seemingly copied from the Data File without considering the task purpose. Such phrases as 'Typical
Vincent!', 'they were like scared', etc. from the Data File were considered to be inappropriate for the task. An
example of a reply that may have placated the receiver is:
'Dear Mrs Tardelli,
We apologize for the accident caused. Concerning the incident, we would like to answer your questions
mentioned in your earlier email.
First of all, we are .... The hike leader should be competent in ..., as stated in the code of conduct for
hike leaders. Therefore, our. instructors are experienced ... . Moreover, the Code of Conduct was produced by
the Hong Kong Professional Hiking Association, thus we are required to follow strictly, and ....
... We would pay more attention to our future activities.... We thank you for your concern and we hope
your son will get well soon. For any more enquiries, please feel free to contact us. '
Around 73% of candidates failed to include an appropriate subject heading. These candidates either left the
heading blank or included a heading which was deficient in some way. Such headings often failed to cohere
with the rest of the text or were so vague that they were not informative enough for the reader to be useful.
Examples of inappropriate headings included: 'Replying to your email', 'The concern about the accidents',
'Re: Email from Mrs Edith Tardelli '.
Coherence and cohesion
A total of 66% of the candidates used non-integrated connectives especially topic fronting devices accurately
though not always effectively. Around 34% of the candidates simply grouped all answers to the questions
together in a disjointed manner. Among them, only 7% used a range of devices successfully and accurately.
An example of weak performance in coherence and cohesion:
'Monica Lim has over 10 years experience of guide, who have Wilderness First Aid, Freerunning Instructor
Intermediate level. This hiking log just contain 6 participants, therefore 1 leader is enough according to the
Hong Kong Professional Hiking Association. In this case, Monica Lim has owned mobile phone, but the
phone does not work. Therefore, in next time, we would let leader bring two mobile phone. Ifpeople get hurt,
the guide check their leg carefully but start asking them some pretty strange questions. And then, the guide
will carry a first aid pack and everything-and until people feel well. '

Grammatical accuracy

A key skill assessed is the adaptation of language from source texts written for different purposes to prepare
answers to placate the complainant. 22% failed to use their own language sufficiently or accurately, 54% of
the candidates managed at times, and 22% wrote more successfully and created more grammatical sentences.
Only 2% were judged to have manipulated their language successfully to create grammatically correct
sentences by adopting a wide variety of changes to the original text. Below is an example of a candidate who
adapted a phrase successfully but with numerous errors:
'Monica had carried a mobil phone But her phone wouldn't work so she borrowed one from the groupmate to
call for the ambulance, And we have recommended her to carry 2 mobil phones next time. '
General comments and recommendations
Section E of the Use of English paper is a comprehensive test of candidates' ability to use their English in a
specific context. Those candidates who approach Section E as if it were a reading comprehension paper, with
the added requirement of linking their 'answers' with an array of different connectives do so at their peril.
Candidates' work is ultimately judged in this Section on the text that they themselves produce and markers are
instructed to read the candidates' work from the perspective of someone who has not seen the materials from
the Data File. Candidates should therefore always focus primarily on creating a coherent text.
In order to do this, candidates should firstly collect together the relevant information needed to complete the
task. Candidates are recommended to take their own notes at this stage as this would help when they
eventually come to writing the text in their own words. They should then go back to the situation and
instructions to gain a better understanding of the context, the audience, the type of text required and the tone to
adopt. Lastly, they should write a detailed plan of their writing. It is only after these stages that they should
begin writing.
Unfortunately, there is often little evidence of candidates doing this essential preparation work. Instead, many
simply go through the Data File copying phrases or whole sentences as they go along. Indeed, there is
evidence to suggest that a number of candidates write the headings for individual sections, leaving a gap
between each and then trawl the Data File, writing three or four sections simultaneously. This inevitably
results in a final product which lacks in clear purpose and coherence. It is perhaps unsurprising if such tactics
are employed that only 3.3% of the candidates in Task 1 and 7% in Task 2 were judged to have written a
highly coherent text.
The same advice which is often presented for Section B regarding the necessity for candidates to develop good
proofreading skills, of course, applies in Section E. In this section, proofreading has the added dimension of
candidates having to make sure that any phrases borrowed from the Data File are firstly in the correct tone and
register and secondly that they fit into the candidates' own sentences grammatically. Such effective
proofreading, of course, can only take place if candidates have left adequate time at the end of the exam.
Given that only 4.6% of the candidates in Task 1 and 2% in Task 2 were judged to have written highly
accurately, this is an aspect of performance in this section that the vast majority of candidates urgently need to
attend to.