Eduqas A-Level English Literature: Component 4 Prose Study (NEA) overview quiz quiz

A timed written examination answering one essay question on a single prescribed set prose text

An unseen prose close-reading paper sat under timed exam conditions with no advance preparation at all allowed

The non-exam assessment: a 2,500 to 3,500 word comparison of two prose texts, worth 80 marks (20 percent)

A short multiple-choice prose comprehension paper marked entirely by the awarding body

Two prose texts written by the same single author, taken from anywhere in their published output

Any two literary texts the candidate happens to like, freely including works of drama and poetry as well as prose

Two post-2000 novels by different authors, with no requirement for an earlier text in the pairing

One pre-2000 and one post-2000 prose text, by different authors, centre-nominated and not used elsewhere

AO3 (context), AO4 (connections) and AO5 (interpretations)

AO1 (argument), AO2 (analysis) and AO3 (context) only

AO2 (analysis), AO4 (connections) and AO5 (interpretations)

Only AO4 (connections), with the others left unassessed

1,000 to 1,500 words

2,500 to 3,500 words

5,000 to 6,000 words

No limit

Reported in full and at length to demonstrate to the moderator just how much background was read

Confined entirely to the bibliography at the end, never appearing anywhere in the body of the essay

Selectively and critically: interpretations evaluated against the texts, context woven where it changes meaning

Left out completely, since only the candidate's own entirely unaided reading of the two prose texts is ever credited

It mainly serves to make the finished essay look longer and more scholarly to the moderator

It is an optional piece of presentational decoration that adds nothing to the actual argument

It can simply replace the separate bibliography altogether, so the two need never both appear in the finished work

It distinguishes your own argument from your sources, protecting academic honesty and supporting AO1

Around a thesis and idea-led comparative sections, each advancing the argument with connection throughout

Text A handled completely in the first half, then Text B in the second, with the comparison saved for the end

As a long descriptive list cataloguing every literary device found in each of the two prose texts

As a careful chapter-by-chapter plot summary of each of the two texts written out in turn

The two texts being made as nearly identical as possible in theme, form and historical period

A shared theme or concern with enough difference, so they ask the same question and answer it differently

The two texts being completely unrelated in absolutely every respect, so that the comparison feels genuinely fresh

Both texts having been written by exactly the same author at the same point in their career

Address each assessment objective neatly in its own clearly labelled separate section of the essay

Use only one assessment objective per paragraph and never mix two within the same stretch

Weave analysis, connection, context and interpretation into a single idea-led argument

List all five of the assessment objectives openly in the essay's introduction for the moderator

There is no real difference between the two, since both put the critic's idea into the essay equally well

Reporting a critic's view at length is actually the stronger and far more heavily rewarded approach for AO5 in the NEA coursework

Using an interpretation simply means copying the critic's exact published words across into your own essay

Reporting summarises a critic's view; using brings it into contact with a moment and evaluates it to sharpen the argument

Open a debatable comparative question the essay can test and judge

Simply name the shared theme and the two prose texts being studied, with no argument

Be made as long and detailed as it can possibly be to signal ambition

Avoid naming either of the texts so the discussion can range widely

Simply submit the draft exactly as it stands, since the officially stated word limit is only ever a loose guide anyway

Trim long quotations to the analysed essentials, cut repetition and padding, keep the integrated argument intact

Delete the whole conclusion outright, since it merely restates points already made in the body

Remove the bibliography and all the references entirely in order to claw back the necessary words