You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The original writing is the second of the two parts that make up "Language in Action," the AQA A-Level English Language NEA (specification 7702). The NEA as a whole is worth 100 marks and 20% of the A-level, totals 3,500 words, and is assessed by your teachers and moderated by AQA. Within that, the original writing is not a free-standing piece: it is a piece of original writing together with an accompanying reflective commentary, totalling 1,500 words combined. The commentary is part of that 1,500-word allowance — it is not a separate 750-word task bolted on the side. A common working split is roughly 1,000 words of writing and around 500 of commentary, but the figure that matters, and the one moderators police, is the combined 1,500. The piece itself is assessed mainly on AO5 (expertise and creativity in the use of English); the commentary draws on AO1 (accurate metalanguage) and AO3 (how context shapes meaning).
Fix those facts now, because legacy notes and well-meant rumour circulate wrong ones — "a separate 750-word commentary," a mark-out-of-50, an "8% slice." None of those is correct for AQA 7702. The original writing is where you stop being only an analyst of other people's language and become a producer of crafted English in your own right; this lesson sets out exactly what the specification asks for, how to choose a genre and a style model, and how to plan a piece that gives you something rich to reflect on.
| Feature | The original writing (with commentary) |
|---|---|
| Part of | "Language in Action" NEA (100 marks, 20% of the A-level, 3,500 words total) |
| Word allowance | 1,500 words combined — the writing and the commentary together |
| Typical split | ~1,000 words of writing + ~500 of commentary (confirm your centre's guidance) |
| Mainly assesses | AO5 for the writing; the commentary draws on AO1 and AO3 |
| Assessed by | Your teachers, against AQA band descriptors, then moderated by AQA |
Key Definition: Original writing (AQA 7702) — one of the two parts of the "Language in Action" NEA: a piece of original writing in a genre of your choice plus an accompanying reflective commentary, totalling 1,500 words combined. The writing is assessed mainly on AO5; the commentary draws on AO1 and AO3. The other part is the language investigation (~2,000 words excluding data).
The two parts of the NEA share a single 100-mark, 3,500-word envelope, and both must be completed. They reward different things: the investigation rewards systematic analysis of real data (AO1/AO2/AO3); the original writing rewards crafted production (AO5) plus reflective analysis of your own craft (AO1/AO3). It is a mistake to treat the writing as the "lighter" part and rush it — every part of the folder is marked, and AO5 is the only place across the whole A-level where your creative skill in English is examined at all.
Your original writing must demonstrate "expertise and creativity in the use of English" (AO5). "Expertise" here does not mean reaching for the most ornate vocabulary you can find; it means controlled, purposeful choices appropriate to a defined genre, audience and purpose, such that the language produces deliberate effects. A plain sentence placed precisely for impact is more expert than a florid one used carelessly. The piece must be genuinely your own — not copied, not closely paraphrased from an existing text — though you should study a style model to learn the conventions of your chosen form.
Key Definition: Style model — a published text in the same genre as your intended piece, which you study to understand the conventions, techniques and linguistic features of that genre. You may cautiously learn from a real model, but you must not reproduce its content or invent quotations from it; your commentary then explains how the model informed your own choices.
The writing can be in any genre. Two broad families cover most strong choices:
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| Creative writing | Short stories, novel openings, dramatic monologues, scripts, memoir, travel writing |
| Transactional / persuasive writing | Journalism (feature articles, opinion columns, investigative pieces), speeches, blogs, letters, reviews, podcast scripts |
The decisive question when choosing is: does this genre give me the room to show controlled, purposeful language choices — and something worth analysing afterwards in the commentary? A genre with rich, visible craft choices (a dramatic monologue, an opinion column, a piece of travel writing) gives you more to reflect on than a flat, formulaic form.
Genre choice shapes everything downstream — your style model, your audience, your craft toolkit, and the commentary you will eventually write. Weigh three factors.
Be honest about what you do well. If you are a natural storyteller with a flair for description and a feel for character, narrative fiction may suit you. If you are surer with argument, persuasion and rhetorical patterning, transactional writing is likely the stronger bet. The aim is not to pick the "hardest" genre to look ambitious; it is to pick the one in which you can produce genuinely controlled, deliberate writing — because that is what AO5 rewards.
Every genre has conventions — the features readers expect of that text type. Strong original writing shows secure command of these conventions, even where it chooses to bend or subvert them; to break a rule for effect, you must first show you know the rule.
| Genre | Key Conventions |
|---|---|
| Short story | Narrative arc, characterisation, setting, dialogue, controlled point of view, "show, don't tell" |
| Novel opening | Hooks the reader, establishes voice and setting, introduces character or conflict, raises questions |
| Dramatic monologue | Single speaker, character revealed through voice, an implied addressee, sustained subtext |
| Feature article | Headline, standfirst, anecdotal opening, varied paragraph length, accessible register, a clear angle |
| Opinion column | Strong authorial voice, personal anecdote, rhetorical devices, a provocative tone, direct address |
| Speech | Rhetorical structure, repetition, tricolon, direct address, emotive language, a call to action |
| Travel writing | Vivid sensory description, personal reflection, cultural observation, a loose narrative spine |
| Blog post | Conversational register, personal voice, subheadings, direct address, a controlled informality |
Before drafting, define your audience and purpose precisely, because they govern every linguistic choice you make. "Everyone" is not an audience; "Year 11 students anxious about exams" is. "To be interesting" is not a purpose; "to persuade undecided sixth-formers to take up volunteering" is.
Key Definition: Register — the variety of language used in a particular context, shaped by field (subject matter), tenor (the relationship between writer and reader) and mode (spoken or written, formal or informal). Your register must fit your genre, audience and purpose, and stay consistent unless a deliberate shift serves an effect.
Questions to settle before you write:
Coursework Tip: Write a one-sentence "brief" for yourself before drafting — genre, audience, purpose, intended effect — and pin it above your screen. Every time a sentence does not serve that brief, you have found something to cut or change. The clarity of that brief is also what makes your eventual commentary easy to write.
Your style model is a published text in the same genre as your piece. Study it closely to understand four things: what linguistic features characterise the genre; what techniques the writer uses, and how; which conventions the writer follows and which they subvert; and what makes the piece effective for its audience and purpose.
Coursework Tip: Choose a model that genuinely impresses you and that you can analyse closely. A model you admire teaches you more, and a model whose techniques you can name precisely gives your commentary its backbone. Avoid picking one simply because it was suggested; pick one whose craft you can see and explain.
| Your piece | A possible style model | Why it works as a model |
|---|---|---|
| Short story about grief told through objects | A published short story that uses an inventory or list structure | Shows how form and structure can themselves carry emotional content |
| Opinion column on social media | A regular national-newspaper comment columnist | Shows how humour, irony and cultural reference build an engaging argumentative voice |
| Travel writing about a local landscape | A respected modern nature/landscape writer | Shows how landscape writing fuses the personal, the historical and the sensory |
| Speech to sixth-formers | A well-known commencement or motivational address | Illustrates rhetorical patterning that connects with a young audience |
| Accessible blog on language attitudes | An established popular-linguistics blog | Shows how scholarly content is made accessible through informal register and wit |
Important — the fabrication guard for style models. It is fine to learn from a real published writer, but do not quote lines you cannot verify or attribute invented material to a named author. If you want to discuss a specific technique, anchor it to a real, checkable feature of the model — or describe the technique generically ("the conversational opening typical of the genre") rather than fabricate a citation. A confident but false attribution damages the commentary's credibility more than no attribution at all.
A well-planned piece almost always beats an improvised one, because deliberate structure is exactly what AO5 rewards and exactly what gives the commentary something to analyse.
| Aspect | Creative writing | Transactional writing |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | To create an experience — emotional, imaginative, aesthetic | To inform, persuade or argue |
| Language focus | Imagery, figurative language, voice, rhythm, narrative technique | Rhetoric, argument, register, tone, structure |
| Structure | Narrative or poetic; can be non-linear | Logical, signposted; follows genre conventions |
| Commentary focus | How you built voice, atmosphere and character through language | How you used rhetoric, register and structure to achieve a purpose |
| Characteristic risk | Harder to explain creative choices linguistically in the commentary | Harder to evidence "creativity" (AO5) in a functional genre |
Neither family is "easier." Each carries a characteristic trap: creative writers sometimes produce vivid prose they cannot then analyse in the commentary; transactional writers sometimes produce competent argument that shows little linguistic flair. Choose with the commentary already in mind — pick a piece whose choices you will be able to name and justify.
Below is the kind of short planning outline you might take to your teacher for feedback before drafting.
Genre: dramatic monologue. Audience: a general adult listening/reading audience. Purpose: to make the audience feel sympathy that curdles into unease as an apparently reasonable speaker reveals their controlling nature. Style model: a published dramatic monologue in which a single speaker's tone gradually undermines their own self-presentation. Voice: first-person, conversational, scattered with reassuring discourse markers ("look," "honestly," "you understand"). Structure: opens warm and confiding; a turning point at the midpoint where a small detail jars; closes with a chilling, understated final line. Craft to foreground (for the commentary): the gap between the speaker's polite lexis and the controlling implicature beneath it; minor sentences at the moment of menace; second-person address that draws the listener into complicity.
Examiner-style commentary (Top-band plan): This outline would reassure a moderator on every front the writing is assessed against. The genre, audience and purpose are precise rather than vague, which means every later choice can be judged against a clear brief (AO5). It names a style model and what will be learned from it without fabricating quotation, and it earmarks specific craft features — implicature, minor sentences, second-person address — that the commentary can later analyse with accurate metalanguage (AO1) and tie to audience and effect (AO3). Crucially, it builds in a structural turn, giving the piece shape and the commentary something genuine to discuss. A Mid-band plan, by contrast, would say only "a monologue about a creepy man," with no defined effect, no model and no earmarked craft — leaving the writer to improvise and the commentary with little to analyse.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.