Skip to main content
EnglandEnglish Language & LiteratureSyllabus dot point

How do you plan and write the Making Connections non-exam assessment that compares a literary and a non-literary text?

The Making Connections NEA investigation: choosing texts and a focus, comparing one literary and one non-literary text or a theme across texts, and meeting the academic and referencing requirements.

How to plan and write the AQA 7707 Making Connections non-exam assessment: selecting a literary and a non-literary text, framing a comparative focus, structuring the analysis and meeting the word count and referencing requirements.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.812 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. Choosing texts and a focus
  3. Building the comparison
  4. Meeting the academic requirements
  5. How to approach the NEA
  6. Try this

What this dot point is asking

The non-exam assessment for 7707 is Making Connections: an independent comparative investigation. You apply the integrated method to compare a literary and a non-literary text (or a theme across texts) and write up the analysis as an academic essay. It is worth 20 percent of the A-level, marked by the school and moderated by AQA. Success depends on a sharp focus, genuine comparison and rigorous, evidenced analysis sustained over an extended piece of writing.

Choosing texts and a focus

The pairing is the foundation of the whole investigation, so invest time in it. The connection must be real rather than forced: the two texts should genuinely illuminate each other, whether through a shared theme, a comparable representation, a common concept or a parallel linguistic method. The line of enquiry then narrows this into something answerable in the word count. Compare a broad title such as the presentation of power with a narrow one such as how second-person address constructs authority in a political speech and a dramatic monologue: the second has a clear analytical object and a built-in linguistic focus, so it produces analysis rather than survey. Choose texts you find rich and settle the focus early so the analysis has a clear spine.

Building the comparison

Plan a framework of three or four strands (for example representation, perspective and linguistic method) and compare within each strand, so the comparison is built into the structure rather than added afterward. Organising the essay by strand rather than by text is the structural decision that keeps it genuinely comparative; a text-by-text structure almost always drifts into two separate analyses. Within each strand, alternate between the texts with explicit connectives, and make sure each comparative claim is grounded in named linguistic features in both texts.

Meeting the academic requirements

The investigation is an academic essay: maintain a focused argument, use accurate metalanguage, integrate quotation, and reference sources and any secondary reading correctly. Observe the word count and present a clear introduction (establishing the texts, focus and framework), an analytical body (organised by strand) and a conclusion (drawing the comparison to an argued end). Accurate referencing and an appropriate academic register are part of the assessment, so build them in from the first draft rather than retrofitting them. Because the work is marked internally and moderated by AQA, it must show a clear, defensible method that a moderator can follow.

How to approach the NEA

Read widely to find a rich pairing, settle a narrow focus, build a comparative framework, then draft and redraft. Keep referencing accurate from the start and check the analysis is integrated, not descriptive. Test each body paragraph by asking whether it compares the texts within a single strand and whether every claim is evidenced; if a paragraph analyses only one text, restructure it.

Try this

Q1. What kinds of texts does the Making Connections investigation compare? [2 marks]

  • Cue. A literary text and a non-literary text (or material), usually around a shared theme, concept or method.

Q2. Explain why a narrow focus matters in the investigation. [3 marks]

  • Cue. A precise, answerable focus produces sustained analysis; a broad focus produces description that caps the marks.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of AQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

AQA 202020 marksPlan a Making Connections investigation comparing a literary and a non-literary text around a shared focus. Outline your texts, your line of enquiry and your comparative framework.
Show worked answer →

A planning task in the spirit of the NEA. Markers (and moderators) reward a narrow, answerable focus and a genuine connection between a literary and a non-literary text.

Name a literary text and non-literary material linked by a real connection (a shared theme, representation, concept or method), then frame a precise line of enquiry rather than a broad theme. State a framework of three or four strands you will compare within.

Show that the comparison will run throughout, driven by linguistic evidence. A plan built on a vague theme such as love or power, or on two texts that do not genuinely speak to each other, would weaken the investigation.

AQA 202116 marksExplain how you would ensure your Making Connections investigation stays comparative and integrated throughout.
Show worked answer →

The focus is method: keeping the essay genuinely comparative and evidenced. Markers reward concrete strategies, not generalities.

Describe organising by analytical strand rather than by text, comparing within each strand with connectives, and ensuring every interpretive claim is proven with named linguistic features in both texts.

Explain how a narrow focus and a shared framework prevent the two analyses from drifting apart, and how accurate referencing and an academic register meet the assessment requirements. A response that describes two separate analyses misses the comparative demand.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this