Nine-mark extended writing questions –

GCSE Physical Education

This document includes four examples of candidate answers to extended response questions from
the 2019 summer series.

Before looking at the examples a quick summary of the requirements of the extended responses
should be helpful.

Nine marks are available per extended response. The nine marks are allocated depending on the
quality of the response, how well, as a whole, the response demonstrates the skills of:

 Recall of knowledge (AO1)

 Application of knowledge (AO2)
 Analysis/evaluation (based on relevant AO1/AO2 content) (AO3)

Each of these skills is allocated a maximum of three marks thus a response that only demonstrates
knowledge, no matter the extent of the knowledge, would only gain a maximum of three marks.

There is no one ‘right’ way to address the extended responses, however one successful approach
implemented by many candidates is to structure their response in ‘developed paragraphs’. So that,
each paragraph recalls information, applies this knowledge to the question context, and then,
depending on the command word, analyses or evaluates the information presented in terms of the
question context.

The examples contained in this document are all in response to the command word ‘evaluate’. Page
55 of the specification provides a list of command words and definitions. Regardless of the
command word used for the extended response questions the same principles will apply, i.e. a
maximum of three marks will be awarded per assessment objective, dependent on the quality of
each skill demonstrated.

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 1 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
The first and second examples are from Paper 1, question 14 from the 2019 examination series.

The question has the context of shot put and candidates were asked to evaluate the training
methods causing three long-term training effects, and the impact of these effects on shot put
performance.

To fully address the question and to meet all of the required AO’s candidates needed to:

 Show knowledge of the training methods that could cause the long-term training effects (AO1)
 Consider the effect of these training methods on shot put performance (AO2)
 Evaluate the training methods given the question context, i.e. provide a reasoned judgment
about the value of each method (AO3)
Two aspects of the question had some relevance to shot put performance, one did not, this should
have been reflected in the candidate evaluation. Those achieving level three tended to recognise
that a reduced resting heart rate was not of direct value to the shot putter and could justify why.

The examples here reflect the approach taken by many candidates, i.e. they:

 Identify the type of training method that would bring each training effect (AO1)
 Link this training effect to performance in the shot put (AO2)
 Make a reasoned judgement about whether the training method was valuable to the shot putter
based on the impact it would have on performance (AO3)

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 2 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
Example 1
This response contains three paragraphs, one paragraph for each long-term training effect given in
the question. This is a good approach as it helps ensure no section of the question is omitted. This is
important if candidates are to satisfy the levels-based mark scheme, for example to achieve level 3
(7-9 marks) there needs to be accurate knowledge throughout, application of knowledge to question
context throughout and valid and well-reasoned conclusions.

Whilst not specifically a training method, increased bone density has been correctly linked to weight
bearing activity, demonstrating appropriate knowledge. There is an attempt to apply this knowledge,
linking increased bone density to shot put, but the linkage is flawed as applying greater force to
throw the shot further would be due to the muscular system rather than the skeletal system.
However, there is an argument presented that the stronger bones (as a result of the training) will
decrease the risk of injury meaning that training will not be disrupted, preventing reversibility, thus
improving performance. This is a valid, reasoned point about the impact on shot put performance,
thus this paragraph contains evidence of AO1 (knowledge) and AO3 (evaluation). Reference to injury
was on the right lines for application but it needed to be a little more specific to shot put, e.g. there
could have been reference to injury at the wrists to make the point applied rather than a general
knowledge point about the benefit of increased bone density.

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 3 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
The second paragraph focuses on the second long-term training effect, a decreased resting heart
rate. Again, knowledge is shown, linking the training effect to a relevant training method and there is
good additional knowledge shown to explain the reasons for the drop in resting heart rate. The
effect this has on shot put performance is not given, for example, it could have been applied in
relation to increasing cardiovascular fitness (as part of improvement in his general fitness) or linked
to recovery. Similarly, although there is an attempt to evaluate ‘This won’t have that much of an
impact as resting heart rate won’t have an affect’ this is not reasoned, there is no evidence
presented to back-up this statement. This could have been achieved by referencing the fact that the
explosive, anaerobic nature of shot put would not be improved through increased cardiovascular
fitness. Therefore, the second paragraph contains evidence of AO1 (knowledge) only.

The third paragraph provides evidence of AO2 (application) and AO3 (evaluation). Although weight
training is a form of interval training so are many other training methods, for example, running
based. As not all forms would be appropriate this was insufficient to demonstrate the required
knowledge of the causes of muscular hypertrophy. Whilst the theoretical link to the training method
was a little vague, the reasoning and application was sound. I.e. that hypertrophy would result in
bigger, stronger, more powerful muscles which would be able to exert a greater force resulting in a
better distance being achieved.

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 4 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
This example response was placed in level 2, 5 marks. The levels-based descriptors for this question
are:

Example 2
In contrast to the previous example this response was placed at level 3, 8 marks.

The format of the response is similar, but this response provides greater detail and application of
knowledge.

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 5 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
Again, increased bone density is linked to weight-bearing activity and again there is justification for
including this type of training into the shot-put performer’s training programme, i.e. to avoid injury
so that reversibility does not occur, causing time away from training. There is a little more detail in
this response, however at this point AO2 (application) has not been demonstrated.

The second paragraph considers the drop in resting heart rate. This is accurately linked to aerobic
exercise, in particular continuous training such as fartlek or aerobic circuit training. There is also
application of knowledge here, linking the type of training and the training adaptation to an increase
in the performer’s cardiovascular fitness. This then provides the evidence for a reasoned justification
why this type of training would not be suitable for shot put, i.e. that the athlete will not be working at
a moderate intensity for long periods of time, that their sport involves high intensity work for very
short periods thus this type of training would not improve performance. This part of the response is
really well justified and good evidence of the candidate’s ability to make an evaluation. This
paragraph contains evidence of AO1 (knowledge), AO2 (application) and AO3 (evaluation).

The third paragraph also addresses all of the assessment objectives. Muscular hypertrophy is
accurately linked to a number of potential training methods, this knowledge is applied as the effect
this has on the athlete’s muscular system is clearly stated, as is the method of using weight training,
i.e. low reps at 80-90% of his 1RM and that this would target the fast twitch muscle fibres. There is
also some justification for inclusion of these forms of training to bring about this long-term effect.
This is given at the start of the paragraph, e.g. hypertrophy increases power and strength to throw
the shot put further, this is reiterated in the fourth paragraph.

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 6 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
The fourth paragraph is an attempt to summarise the essay.

There is no need to provide a concluding paragraph that repeats points already made, however,
some candidates may prefer to include their knowledge and application in the main part of the
response and finish with a concluding paragraph that justifies the relevance, or not, of the training
adaptations and therefore methods used. The issue with this approach, as mentioned previously, is
that it is easier to forget some vital linkage which would be better made within each individual
paragraph.

As the points stated here have already been made (and in more appropriate detail) this concluding
paragraph does not add to the quality of the response in terms of AO1, AO2 or AO3.
Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 7 of 14 Version 1.0
Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 8 of 14 Version 1.0
Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
The third and fourth examples are from Paper 2, question 14 from the 2019 examination series.

The method to determine the level of a response and the marks within that level for this paper is
identical to that required for Paper 1.

The question assessed:

 Knowledge of intrinsic and extrinsic feedback (AO1)

 Ability to apply knowledge to context of an U12 hockey team (AO2)
 Ability to evaluate the importance of the two types of feedback given the context of a young
team (AO3)
Of the nine marks available a maximum of three marks could be achieved for each assessment
objective: AO1; AO2 and AO3.

Example 3
This response is well-organised, points are made and developed further so that the required skills of
recall, application and evaluation of this knowledge can be demonstrated.

The opening, introductory paragraph defines both types of feedback. Knowledge of the types of
feedback is immediately demonstrated thus contributes towards AO1.

The second and third paragraphs focus on extrinsic feedback, initially why it is of importance and
then a potential issue with the type of feedback. On balance however there is a well-reasoned case
for the use of extrinsic feedback with this age group. Accurate examples of the positive use of this
type of feedback are given, e.g. the coach telling the children to bend the knees whilst dribbling to
improve their performance or its use in telling the children about positioning of themselves and the
passes (AO2). There is justification for its use, focusing on the children’s inexperience and therefore
not yet having the kinaesthetic feel of the skill (AO3). Further justification is provided in terms of
motivation, the correction of errors by the coach leading to early success and therefore motivation
to continue to play.

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 9 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 10 of 14 Version 1.0
Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
The fourth paragraph covers intrinsic feedback. An example of effective intrinsic feedback is given
(AO2), and the argument presented to justify why a young performer would not be able to achieve
this (AO3). This justification draws on other relevant knowledge as well as that of feedback, i.e. the
nature of the skills within the game of hockey. This shows very good linkage between relevant topics
(although maximum marks could still be achieved without this cross-over between topics).

The final paragraph is a concluding point, but the valuable justifications have already been made in
the earlier paragraphs.

This response was placed at level 3 and awarded 9 marks.

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 11 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
Example 4
This response provides evidence of elements of knowledge, for example that extrinsic feedback is
from an external source such as a coach, or that extrinsic feedback is more useful when
inexperienced. (AO1). There is also justification why extrinsic feedback would be the more important,
for example, due to the team’s inexperience therefore not knowing what the correct skill should be
and also as a tool to provide motivation and confidence to the young side when they saw
improvement in their play (AO3).

There is a statement that intrinsic feedback would not be important due to their minimal experience
so therefore they won’t know if the pass is a good pass or not (AO3).

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 12 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
A conclusion is provided, but this repeats points already made.

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 13 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019
The greatest weakness in this response is the lack of AO2 content, i.e. much of the content is
‘theoretical’ in nature. Examples to link to game play could have been given throughout, for example,
in the first paragraph, an example of the sort of feedback the coach may give to ‘guide the players’
could have been stated.

This response was placed at level 2 and awarded 5 marks.

It is hoped that this supporting document will prove to be positive and constructive in helping to
raise achievement in future series. Centres are encouraged to read the Principal Examiner’s
Feedback Report on 2019 examination papers at the link here.

Author: Quality Delivery & Assurance Page 14 of 14 Version 1.0

Manager
Approver: Product Manager DCL1 – Public Date: December 2019