How to approach the NEA in A Level English Language - Part 2

Collecting data, and writing an introduction and methodology

Data collection

Once your students have decided on a focus, they will need to collect some data.

Alongside this, I think that students should be encouraged to begin writing their introduction and methodology, as these parts of the investigation can be written whether the student has finished collecting their data or not. Plus, they will feel better having chipped away at some of the word count - a 2000-2500 word assignment is obviously not that long, but it feels like it from the perspective of many sixth formers, especially when we consider the workload they might have from their other subjects.

If a student intends to collect spoken data, please have a look at my previous blog post, as I set out some of the steps that they would need to take to set this up; it is not a simple or quick process. However, if the data is a set of written texts, the data collection should be more straight-forward.

Whilst not the only way to approach this investigation, I have found that the majority of my students select data that will allow some sort of comparison of texts. Here are some examples that would fit this approach:

• an investigation into how male and female prime ministers use language differently
• an investigation into how language is used differently in film tag-lines across time
• an investigation into how male celebrities of different ages use language on Twitter

All of these investigations would work well, but it’s important that students have considered variables before they start collecting the data.

In each of the examples above, the dependent variable is the language that is used. The independent variable is the particular thing that we want to assess, to see whether it has had an influence on language use.

Let’s take the first one - the investigation on male and female prime ministers. Imagine that the data we were analysing were their answers given in PMQs. Here are some variables that could influence the different language that we see being used by male and female prime ministers:

• their age
• the political party that they belong to
• the time period in which they were prime minister
• the subject matter they were talking about in their answer
• their education

We have to try and keep as many as these variables as constants, meaning that they do not change. With that in mind, I might decide to select Boris Johnson and Theresa May as the prime ministers that I am going to focus on. Why? They’re not that different in terms of age (Johnson born in 1964, May born in 1956); they are both members of the Conservative Party; Johnson succeeded May as prime minister, so they were doing the job at a similar time; both Johnson and May went to university at Oxford.

The last thing I would need to do is to try and find an answer to a question on similar subject matter - perhaps the NHS, or Brexit? That would mean that my investigation would have a better chance at finding out if the gender of a prime minister has an impact on their language use.

Of course, it is impossible to control all of these variables - your students should just try their best. I always tell my classes that it doesn’t matter if every variable couldn’t be controlled, as it will give them something to comment on in their Evaluation. The important thing is that they can demonstrate that they have given these variables considerable thought.

Students should be taking notes on all of these considerations, as it will help them to begin writing their methodology.

Methodology

A methodology should allow the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the investigation. Students should include the following things:

1. What type of data was being collected, and why was this type of data selected?
2. What are some of the extraneous variables, and how did you select data in way that allowed you to control their influence?
3. Were there any ethical considerations? This would be important if the investigation included children as participants, or if participants needed to be anonymised for any reason.

Others should be able to read the methodology and replicate it. In terms of written style, encourage your students to write the methodology (and other parts of the investigation, to be honest), using past tense, third-person, and the passive voice. This will help them to achieve a secure academic register, which is a requirement of the mark scheme.

Following this, students should be able to begin writing their introduction. An introduction should do the following:

• Introduce the data that has been selected, and explain why it is linguistically important.

So, if I was writing the aforementioned investigation about prime ministers, I might start with:

Prime Ministers Questions is a weekly event held in the House of Commons, where the Prime Minister answers questions from MPs. PMQs receives considerable attention from the media, and leaders of the main political parties attempt to out-wit their opponents, with the hope that their success will be replayed as sound bites on news programmes.

If my audience has never heard of PMQs, this opening would provide them with a brief overview so that they could understand the rest of my investigation. I have also alluded to its linguistic significance by explaining that the media takes a great interest in this weekly political event.

• Refer to your particular focus

Remember, with this investigation, I wanted to find out if male and female prime ministers use language differently in this setting. I could continue my introduction like this:

Whilst most prime ministers in the United Kingdom have been men, there have been two female prime ministers, with Theresa May being the most recent example. This investigation sought to find out whether or not a prime minister’s gender has an impact on their language use within a specific political context.

I have made it clear that the investigation will focus on language differences related to gender. You might have noticed that I have written this in past tense (‘This investigation sought to...’). That is deliberate. Whilst I have not yet completed the analysis of the data and discovered any findings, when I hand in my work, it needs to be written as if the investigation has been completed.

• Allude to language concepts that will be applicable to your data

In my previous blog post, I emphasised the importance of critically engaging with language concepts when analysing the data. Your students should allude to concepts and theories relevant to the investigation in their introductions:

As PMQs is combative in tone, it was expected that concepts relating to power could be explored, as well as language and gender theories. For example, face-threatening acts were likely to feature in the answers of both prime ministers.

Your students might find it useful to add this section to the introduction once they have completed their analysis. Having glanced at the data I am going to use for this investigation, I already know that FTAs feature. Your students should not allude to concepts that they have no intention of referring to.

After writing these two sections, it’s likely that your students will have written about 20% of their investigation. Wasn’t that easy?

The next section is a bit harder, and is the longest part of the investigation: the analysis.

The views in this blog are not necessarily shared or endorsed by the centre that I currently work at or the examining body in question.

Photo at the top of the page by Markus Winkler on Unsplash