Feedback for Centres - International GCSE Greek (First Language) (9-1) Paper 2: Writing - Question 1 Feedback

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by nayy☆

Feedback for Centres for International GCSE Greek (First Language) (9-1) Paper 2: Writing focuses on Question 1, a complaint letter about an unsuccessful trip. It outlines how successful responses include pertinent, believable details, an appropriately formal tone, balanced narrative structure, and justified requests such as refunds or discounts. Common problems include excessive preambles, disjointed placement of negative points, citing faults beyond the travel agency, and compensation requests framed too weakly or unclearly. Three sample responses show differing strengths, language accuracy issues, organization, plausibility, and criterion-related mark distribution.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatDOCX

Pages1

Reading Time3 min

AccessFree to download

Overview

Common errors

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Feedback for Centres International GCSE Greek (First Language) (9-1) Paper 2: Writing4GK1_02 Question 1 Feedback Overview Question 1 was a letter of complaint about a trip that went wrong. Many candidates successfully provided pertinent details without unnecessary and long-winded explanations about the trip, highlighting the problems encountered and requesting either a refund or a discount on future trips. Successful essays adopted a formal tone, gave a balanced account of the trip, and provided ample justification about the compensation requested. Common errors included a tendency to provide long preambles about preparation for the trip, or lingering on content that would not normally be included in such a letter. Another pattern concerned a tendency to over-emphasise the positive aspects of the trip, so that when, finally, the negative aspects were mentioned they did not follow naturally from the previous information and the essay seemed both disjointed and unconvincing. Others cited problems for which the travel agency could not be responsible, such as bad weather, flight delays, unfriendly customs officials, lost luggage, polluted beaches, unfriendly natives or accidents. Finally, some requests for compensation were framed as polite requests and seemed too feeble and unconvincing, given that this was supposed to be a letter of complaint. Example 1 Communication and Content: 7 Application and Accuracy of Language: 6 Total marks: 13 This is a representative response that is only partially successful in fulfilling the requirements for this question. The candidate makes a range of relevant points which are not developed appropriately and often result in non-sequiturs and ambiguity. For a letter of complaint to be successful, it needs to be rooted in realistic situations and pragmatics that do not challenge the feasibility of the events described or the suspension of disbelief. In terms of language, fluency without accuracy and efficient organisation of the material is not adequate for achieving marks from the higher bands in an examination that assesses first language competences. Clearly a three-day excursion from Greece to Japan is already a concept which evokes disbelief (in reality, the flight alone is more than 16 hours). The candidate employs a register which is at times successful and at times too conversational for the genre in question. Language is generally appropriate to the task and a range of suitable vocabulary is employed, but with some intrusive errors in expression, syntax, choice of vocabulary and spelling. Infelicities such as: Α’ τάξη instead of θέση, οδηγό instead of πιλότο, γλοιώδεις instead of βρώμικες, to mention but a few, often detract from the appropriacy of the language and clumsiness in expression takes away from the persuasiveness of the piece as a whole. Example 2 Communication and Content: 12 Application and Accuracy of Language: 9 Total marks: 21 This is a good response that earned marks from the top tiers of the assessment criteria. There were several positive aspects to this essay: effective and clear explanation of the things that went wrong, which seemed plausible; good organisation of description and narration using paragraphs with mostly smooth transitions; a strong closing paragraph; an awareness of audience and purpose sustained often, albeit with some infelicities in expression, for example “χυδαία μεταχείρηση”; collocations that did not entirely work, for example “εικόνα υγιούς δωματίου”; the omission of the addressee at the beginning of the letter or email; the omission of a signature (it should not be a real name, but it should be a name, nevertheless); some ambiguity regarding the time line and the significance of distinguishing between when the trip was organised and when it took place (for example, why was this important to mention and what does it mean in actual terms, what did it add to the overall argument?); s

FAQs

What kind of text is Question 1 asking candidates to write?

Question 1 requires a letter of complaint about a trip that went wrong. Successful answers describe problems encountered and request compensation such as a refund or a discount.

What are the most common errors noted in the feedback?

Common issues include overly long preambles, negative information that does not follow naturally from earlier positive points, and blaming problems that the travel agency cannot reasonably be responsible for.

How does the feedback describe weaknesses in language and plausibility in the examples?

Some responses show lack of accuracy and organization, with intrusive errors and awkward phrasing that reduce persuasiveness. Plausibility problems—such as unrealistic timelines or compensation calculations—also prevent higher-band marks.

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by nayy☆