Notes · RussianUK · A-Levels

The independent research project: Task 2, Form RP3 and the defence

This topic prepares Task 2 of Paper 3, the independent research project: 42 of the speaking examination's 72 marks and therefore the largest single task in the qualification, taking a recommended 10 to 11 minutes. Part 1 is a presentation of no more than two minutes in which the student summarises at least two of the written sources used in the research, outlines their authors' main points and gives a personal response; it is marked out of 12 for responding in speech to written language (AO2). Part 2 broadens to the research as a whole and is marked by the same three grids as Task 1: knowledge and understanding of society and culture (AO4) out of 12, accuracy and range of language (AO3) out of 12, and interaction (AO1) out of 6. The project must be based on a question or statement the student has defined and developed individually, must relate to Russian-speaking culture or society, must use at least two written sources in Russian, and must NOT be based on a work studied for Paper 2, since a project that focuses on such a work scores zero for Task 2. Six to ten key findings and the source list go on Form RP3, signed by student and teacher and submitted no later than three weeks before the assessment.

5 sections~34 min reading time4 competenciesLevel Standard 1 · Advanced 4

T·131313 / 13

Exam profile

AO2 · Understand and respond in speech to written Russian sources, summarising and evaluating themAO4 · Show knowledge and understanding of, and respond critically to, a self-chosen aspect of the Russian-speaking worldAO3 · Manipulate Russian accurately and with range while presenting and defending independent researchAO1 · Interact effectively, taking the lead and eliciting the examiner's views during the discussion

Operators:сформулироватьисследоватьобобщитьоценитьобосноватьзащититьответить

basic level

At first-year standard the expectation is a clearly defined question, at least two Russian written sources that are genuinely read rather than skimmed, a presentation that summarises them accurately within two minutes, and a discussion in which the student can explain what they found and why it interested them.

higher level

The full A-Level expects the project to be defended. That means a question narrow enough to be answerable and interesting enough to be worth answering; sources evaluated rather than merely reported, including a judgement about whose account is more reliable and why; findings that connect to the wider culture and society of the Russian-speaking world; and a discussion in which the student leads, concedes the limits of their own research and elicits the examiner's views.

Depth

Text

Contents · 5 sections

The independent research project: Task 2, Form RP3 and the defence

Что это такое: the rules, the form, and the one that scores zero#

StandardPearson Edexcel 9RU0 Paper 3 Task 2 - 42 marks, 10 to 11 minutes; Part 1 presentation of no more than two minutesPearson Edexcel 9RU0 Appendix 1 - Independent research project form (RP3)

Task 2 is the largest single task in the qualification and the only one whose content you choose. Forty-two marks over ten to eleven minutes, in two parts. Part 1 is a presentation of no more than two minutes summarising at least two of the written sources used in the research, outlining the authors' main points and ideas and giving a personal response to what was read; it is assessed on the ability to respond in speech to written sources, out of twelve for AO2. Part 2 is a discussion broadening out from the presentation to the research as a whole, marked by the same three grids as Task 1: AO4 out of 12, AO3 out of 12, AO1 out of 6. The teacher-examiner builds their questions from the key findings and source list on your Form RP3.

The rules on what a project may be are specific. It must be based on a question or statement defined and developed by the student individually, investigating an area of interest specifically related to Russian-speaking culture or society. It must include evidence of research findings investigated independently, from a range of authentic sources including the internet. It must let the student contextualise, analyse and summarise findings. And it must let the student identify at least two written sources — in Russian — which they can summarise and respond to personally in the presentation. Written sources include newspaper and magazine articles, online written material, journals and literary texts; films, television, radio and interviews may be used in the research and referred to in the discussion but do not count towards the two written sources.

One rule can void the task entirely and it is worth stating twice. The project must not be based on one of the literary works or films studied for Paper 2, and a student whose project focuses on such a work receives a mark of zero for Task 2 — forty-two marks, roughly a sixth of the whole qualification. What is permitted is a wider exploration of the author or film-maker: if you study a novella by a given writer for Paper 2, a project on that novella is barred, but a project on the writer's life, or on what shaped their work in a broader sense, is allowed. Teachers are required to check this from Form RP3, but the responsibility for not walking into it is ultimately the student's.

Form RP3 itself is administrative and is worth doing early rather than well late. It records the research question or statement, six to ten key findings, and the list of sources, and it is signed by both student and teacher to declare the work is wholly the student's; it must be submitted no later than three weeks before the assessment. You may refer to it during Task 2 but you are not assessed on its contents — the marks are for what you say, not for what is written on the form. Two consequences follow. Write the findings in a form you can speak from, not in polished prose you will be tempted to read. And remember that the examiner will build questions from those findings, so a vague finding invites a vague question and a sharp one invites a discussion you have prepared for.

Worked example

Checking three proposed projects against the rules

Three students propose projects. A studies Вишнёвый сад for Paper 2 and proposes a project on the symbolism of the orchard in that play. B proposes a project on how Russian-language media in Germany report on education. C proposes a project on Russian rap, based on three YouTube documentaries. Assess each.

Project A — barred, and the fix is easy
A project on the play studied for Paper 2 duplicates content and scores zero for Task 2. But the specification explicitly permits a wider exploration of the author, so the fix is available: a project on what shaped Chekhov's writing more broadly, on how his plays were received in his own lifetime, or on how they are staged in Russia today, would all be legitimate provided the project does not become an analysis of the set play itself. The distinction is between the work and its author or its afterlife.
Project B — strong, and for a reason worth naming
It relates to Russian-speaking culture and society; it is narrow enough to answer; written sources in Russian are readily available; and it does not touch any Paper 2 work. It also has an additional advantage: it is about the Russian-speaking world outside Russia, which is unusual in this examination and will be interesting to a teacher-examiner who has heard the same six topics from previous candidates. Note that this breadth is legitimate here regardless of theme scope, because the project's requirement is Russian-speaking culture or society in general.
Project C — legitimate subject, inadmissible sources
Russian rap is a perfectly good subject and connects to Тема 2. But three documentaries are not two written sources in Russian. The specification allows films, television, radio, online audio-visual material and interviews to be used in the research and referred to in the discussion, while requiring at least two written sources that can be summarised in the presentation. The fix is not to abandon the documentaries but to add articles, interviews in print, or written criticism, and to build the presentation on those.
Apply the answerability test to all three
A fourth test, not in the specification but implied by the marks: can the question be answered in ten minutes of discussion? Как русский рэп отражает жизнь молодёжи is not answerable; it is a topic, not a question. Как русскоязычные издания в Германии пишут о школе — на примере двух изданий за один год is answerable, because it names sources and a period. A question that specifies where you looked is almost always better than one that does not.
Then write the question down and stop revising it
Once the question passes all four tests, write it out and commit. Students revise their question repeatedly and each revision invalidates some of the reading already done. The time to change a question is before the sources are read, not after; after that point the correct response to a discovery that complicates the question is to make the complication one of your findings, which is what a real researcher would do and what the AO4 grid rewards.

Result: A — запрещён: проект о произведении, изучаемом для второй работы, оценивается нулём; допустимая замена — более широкое исследование об авторе или о сценической судьбе его пьес. B — подходит по всем пунктам и вдобавок выходит за пределы России, что редко встречается у кандидатов. C — тема допустима, но три документальных фильма не являются двумя письменными источниками на русском языке; их нужно дополнить статьями или печатными интервью.

Typical mistakes

Choosing a project on the author of a Paper 2 work and then discussing the work itself; the wider exploration is permitted, the work is not.
Counting a documentary or a podcast among the two required written sources.
Writing polished prose on Form RP3 and then reading from it; the form is for reference and the marks are for what is said.
Leaving the form until the last month; it must be submitted at least three weeks before the assessment.

Active revision

Проверьте свой замысел по пяти пунктам спецификации: 1) это вопрос или утверждение, сформулированное вами лично; 2) он относится к культуре или обществу русскоязычного мира; 3) есть не менее двух письменных источников на русском языке; 4) он НЕ совпадает с произведением, изучаемым для второй работы; 5) по нему можно записать от шести до десяти находок. Если хотя бы один пункт не выполняется, замысел нужно менять сейчас, а не потом.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Russian (9RU0) specification (Pearson Edexcel)

От интереса к вопросу: narrowing something you like into something you can answer#

AdvancedPearson Edexcel 9RU0 Paper 3 Task 2 - the project must be based on a question or statement defined and developed by the student individuallyPearson Edexcel 9RU0 Paper 3 - teachers may not give students a choice of questions from which to select

От интереса к вопросу, который можно защитить

Fig. 1Three narrowings, then the test that decides. The marked node is the source check, because it is where most workable-sounding questions fail — and because applying it before the narrowing, rather than after, is what produces the vague questions that make for a thin ten minutes.

The specification is unusually strict about independence here, and knowing the rule explains why the narrowing has to be your own work. Teachers may give guidance on research skills, comment on whether an area is suitable, advise on Form RP3 and confirm that a question has the potential to meet the criteria. Teachers may not give students a choice of questions to select from, may not give detailed individual feedback on how to improve the work, may not rehearse the presentation, and may not provide the questions that will be used in the assessment. So the narrowing is a skill you have to be able to perform, not a service you can receive, and it is worth learning as a procedure.

The procedure narrows along three axes and it is usually necessary to use all three. Narrow by place: not Russia but one city, one region, or one diaspora community. Narrow by time: not since the Soviet period but one decade, one year, or a comparison between two dated moments. Narrow by group: not young people but school leavers, or women in one profession, or readers of one publication. A broad interest such as Russian music becomes, after three narrowings, something like how one Russian-language music magazine wrote about rap in a single year — which sounds smaller and is in fact far more interesting, because it can be answered and because the answer will contain something the examiner does not already know.

The test that kills most unworkable questions is the source test, and it should be applied fourth and not first. Once you have a narrowed question, spend an hour finding out whether at least two substantial written sources in Russian actually exist for it. If they do not, do not abandon the interest — adjust the narrowing. A question about a small town may have no written coverage while the same question about a regional capital has plenty. Applying the source test before narrowing produces vague questions chosen for their convenience; applying it after produces sharp questions adjusted for feasibility, which is the right order.

Two features distinguish a question that will produce a good ten-minute discussion. It should be answerable — meaning that at the end of the research you can say something rather than merely describe what you read — and it should be contestable, meaning that a reasonable person could have expected a different answer. Как отмечают Новый год в России is neither: it has one answer and nobody would expect otherwise. Изменилось ли за десять лет то, как русскоязычная пресса в Израиле пишет о российских праздниках is both. Note the ли: a question formed with ли is automatically answerable yes or no with qualifications, which is exactly the shape a discussion needs.

Worked example

Narrowing one interest three times, in real time

A student is interested in Russian cinema. Take that from a topic to a defensible research question, showing what each narrowing gains.

Version zero — the interest, which is not a question
Русское кино. This is a subject area, not a question, and a ten-minute discussion of it would be a survey. Note the diagnostic: there is nothing here that could be true or false, so there is nothing to find out. Every project that goes wrong goes wrong at this stage, by proceeding to research before a question exists.
Narrowing one — by place, which here means by industry rather than by geography
Русскоязычное кино за пределами России. The interest is now about films made in Russian outside the country — in Kazakhstan, in Ukraine before 1991, in the diaspora. This is already more interesting than the original, because it is a subject an examiner is unlikely to have heard discussed, and it fits the project's requirement of relating to Russian-speaking culture and society generally rather than Russia only.
Narrowing two — by time
Русскоязычное кино в Казахстане после 1991 года. A dated boundary does two things: it makes the material finite and it introduces a comparison, because after implies before. A question with a date in it can be answered with evidence; a question without one usually cannot, because there is always another example. Note the case: после plus the genitive, 1991 года.
Narrowing three — by group, and forming the actual question
Как казахстанские режиссёры после 1991 года решают, на каком языке снимать? This narrows to a group — directors — and asks something specific about their decisions. The question is contestable: one might expect the answer to be a straightforward shift away from Russian, and finding that the picture is more complicated is exactly the kind of finding that produces a good discussion.
The source test, and the final adjustment
Spend an hour looking. If written Russian-language sources — interviews with directors, film criticism, festival coverage — exist in sufficient quantity, the question stands. If they exist for two directors but not for the industry as a whole, adjust rather than abandon: на примере двух режиссёров. The final question names its own evidence base, which is the mark of a question that has been through the procedure rather than been thought of.

Result: Путь сужения: «русское кино» → «русскоязычное кино за пределами России» → «русскоязычное кино в Казахстане после 1991 года» → «как казахстанские режиссёры после 1991 года решают, на каком языке снимать, — на примере двух режиссёров». Каждое сужение прибавляет то, что можно доказать; проверка источников проводится последней и меняет не интерес, а формулировку.

Typical mistakes

Choosing a topic rather than a question. A topic produces ten minutes of description.
Applying the source test first, which selects for convenience and produces vague questions.
Asking a teacher to supply or choose the question; the specification forbids it and it is investigated as potential malpractice.
Narrowing on one axis only, so that the question is still too large to answer in ten minutes.

Active revision

Возьмите любой свой интерес, связанный с русскоязычным миром, и сузьте его трижды: по месту, по времени и по группе людей. Запишите четыре версии вопроса — исходную и три суженные. Затем на каждую потратьте пятнадцать минут поиска и отметьте, для какой из них нашлось не менее двух серьёзных письменных источников на русском языке.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Источники: reading two Russian texts properly#

AdvancedPearson Edexcel 9RU0 Paper 3 Task 2 Part 1 - a summary of at least two of the written sources used, outlining the authors' main points and giving a personal response (AO2, 12 marks)Pearson Edexcel 9RU0 Paper 3 - students must include written sources in the assessed language

Twelve of Task 2's forty-two marks are for responding in speech to written language, and they are assessed on the presentation, which means on how you handle two Russian texts. That is a large mark for a small and very trainable skill. The two sources should be chosen for what they let you say rather than for length or prestige: two texts that agree produce a summary, while two that disagree — or that agree about the facts and differ about their significance — produce a comparison, and a comparison is what the grid can reward at its upper levels. Choose the second source after reading the first, and choose it for its relation to the first.

Each source needs to be read three times with three purposes, exactly as a listening passage does. The first reading establishes what the text is: who wrote it, when, for what publication and for what readers, and what its central claim is. The second establishes the argument: how the claim is supported, what evidence is offered, and what the author does not address. The third is for the language you will reuse — five or six phrases, noted in Russian, that let you talk about the source in its own register. A source read three ways in an hour is worth more than four sources skimmed in the same hour, because the presentation requires you to outline main points and respond to them, not to have read widely.

The evaluation is where the upper bands live and it is what most candidates omit. Evaluating a source does not mean judging whether you agree with it. It means saying what kind of text it is and what follows from that: an article in a specialist journal and a column in a popular newspaper will differ in evidence, in audience and in purpose, and noticing this is a real analytical act. The Russian for it is straightforward and worth learning as frames: статья написана для широкой аудитории, поэтому автор обходится без цифр; автор опирается на собственный опыт, а не на исследование; в этом источнике позиция заявлена прямо, а в другом — только подразумевается.

Record everything in Russian, and record it in a form you could speak from. For each source: author and publication with a date; the central claim in one sentence; two supporting points; one thing the source does not address; one phrase you intend to reuse; and one sentence of your own response. Seven lines per source, fourteen for the two, and the presentation is effectively drafted. Note that Form RP3 asks for six to ten key findings and the source list, so this note-taking feeds the form directly. And note the referencing habit the specification asks teachers to promote: record where each source came from at the moment you read it, because reconstructing a reference three months later is far harder than writing it down once.

Worked example

Summarising and evaluating one written source in Russian

You have read an article from a Russian-language publication about how schools in a particular region handle online learning. Show how it is turned into the forty-five seconds of presentation it will occupy.

Place the source before summarising it
Первый источник — статья в региональном интернет-издании, вышедшая в прошлом году и рассчитанная на родителей школьников. Placing the source takes eight seconds and does two things: it shows you have thought about audience and purpose, which is evaluation, and it frames everything that follows. Вышедшая is a past active participle, which is receptive only in the grammar list — so in production say которая вышла instead: статья, которая вышла в прошлом году.
State the author's central claim in one sentence
Автор утверждает, что дистанционное обучение в области закрепилось не как замена школе, а как способ дотянуться до тех, кто живёт далеко. Утверждать, что is the neutral verb of reporting a claim. The не как … , а как … frame preserves the shape of the author's argument rather than flattening it, which is what outlining the main points and ideas actually requires.
Give two supporting points, briefly
В подтверждение приводятся два довода: во-первых, во время пандемии школы получили технику, которая осталась; во-вторых, в районах с плохой дорогой уроки онлайн стали регулярными. В подтверждение приводятся is a reflexive passive with no agent, which is exactly right for reporting somebody else's argument. Two points, twenty seconds.
Evaluate the source, not the claim
При этом статья написана для родителей, а не для специалистов, поэтому в ней почти нет цифр, и вывод строится на нескольких примерах. This sentence is the one most candidates omit and it is where the marks are. It says what kind of text this is and what follows from that — no statistics, argument by example — without saying whether the author is right.
Give a personal response that is a judgement, not a feeling
Мне это показалось убедительным в той части, которая касается географии, и менее убедительным там, где речь идёт о качестве обучения: об этом в статье просто не говорится. Показаться takes a dative and an instrumental or, as here, a predicate adjective. Splitting the response into a part you accept and a part you do not is what the grid means by a personal response, and it takes ten seconds.

Result: Первый источник — статья в региональном интернет-издании, которая вышла в прошлом году и рассчитана на родителей школьников. Автор утверждает, что дистанционное обучение закрепилось не как замена школе, а как способ дотянуться до тех, кто живёт далеко. В подтверждение приводятся два довода: во время пандемии школы получили технику, которая осталась, и в районах с плохой дорогой уроки онлайн стали регулярными. При этом статья написана для родителей, а не для специалистов, поэтому в ней почти нет цифр. Мне это показалось убедительным в той части, которая касается географии, и менее убедительным там, где речь идёт о качестве обучения.

Typical mistakes

Choosing two sources that say the same thing, which limits the presentation to a summary.
Reading widely and shallowly; the grid rewards handling two texts well, not having read six.
Confusing evaluation with agreement. Evaluating means saying what kind of text it is and what follows.
Taking notes in English, which makes the presentation a translation exercise performed under time pressure.

Active revision

Возьмите два русских текста по своей теме и заполните по каждому семь строк: автор и издание с датой; главный тезис одним предложением; два довода; чего в тексте нет; одна фраза, которую вы возьмёте себе; ваш собственный отклик. Затем допишите восьмую строку — одно предложение о том, чем эти два источника отличаются друг от друга по типу, а не по содержанию.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Двухминутная презентация: what has to fit, and what must not#

AdvancedPearson Edexcel 9RU0 Paper 3 Task 2 Part 1 - the presentation must not exceed two minutesPearson Edexcel 9RU0 Paper 3 Task 2 Part 1 - assessed on responding in speech to written sources (AO2), 12 marks

Two minutes is about two hundred and eighty spoken words in Russian at a sensible pace, and the specification requires four things inside them: a summary of at least two written sources, an outline of the authors' main points and ideas, a personal response to what was read, and the whole delivered as a presentation rather than as an answer to a question. That is tight. It means roughly twenty seconds of framing, forty-five seconds on each source, and thirty seconds of response and closing. Anything else — a history of your interest in the subject, a description of how you did the research, a list of everything you found — displaces something the grid is actually measuring.

The most common way to lose these marks is to present the findings rather than the sources. Part 1 is assessed on responding in speech to written language: it is about what two texts said and what you make of them. The findings belong to Part 2, where the examiner will ask about them from Form RP3. A candidate who spends two minutes on what they discovered has answered Part 2 early, left the AO2 grid nothing to reward, and will then have to repeat themselves when the discussion begins. Keep the two parts separate in your preparation and the separation will survive into the room.

The second most common failure is over-running, and it is worth being blunt: the presentation must not exceed two minutes. Practise with a timer until you can deliver it in a hundred and forty seconds, which gives you a margin, and structure it so that it can be cut cleanly if you find yourself running long — the personal response can be compressed to a single sentence without damaging the shape, whereas the second source cannot be dropped at all, because the specification requires at least two. Never write the presentation out in full: like the Task 1 notes, a written script produces a delivery that is audibly read, and a read presentation cannot demonstrate the language control the grids are looking for.

What earns the upper bands is the relation between the sources rather than the sum of them. Two summaries side by side is a competent presentation; two summaries plus a sentence about how they stand to each other is a strong one. The frames are short: оба автора согласны в фактах, но расходятся в оценке; второй источник отвечает на вопрос, который первый только ставит; интересно, что более осторожную позицию занимает как раз специалист, а не журналист. One such sentence, placed just before your personal response, is the single highest-value addition available to a Task 2 presentation, and it costs about twelve seconds.

Worked example

Scripting the two minutes, block by block

Your research question is «Как русскоязычные издания в Германии пишут о российской школе?» and you have two written sources. Build the presentation to a hundred and forty seconds.

Block one, 20 seconds — frame the question and name the sources
Мой вопрос — как русскоязычные издания в Германии пишут о российской школе. Я расскажу о двух письменных источниках: о статье в русскоязычной газете, выходящей в Берлине, и о материале на сайте для русскоязычных родителей. Naming both sources at the start tells the examiner the shape of what is coming and satisfies the requirement visibly. Выходящей is a present active participle, which is productive in the grammar list and is doing real work here.
Block two, 45 seconds — the first source
Follow the pattern from the previous section: place it, state the central claim, give two supporting points, evaluate the kind of text. Keep the whole block to four sentences. The temptation is to give three supporting points because you have them; resist it, because the fourth sentence you would need is worth less than the evaluation sentence it would displace.
Block three, 45 seconds — the second source, in the same shape
Use exactly the same four-sentence shape. The parallelism is not laziness; it makes the comparison audible, because when two things are described in the same order the differences stand out. If the second source is thinner, do not pad it — use the spare seconds for the comparison sentence in the next block, which is worth more.
Block four, 15 seconds — the relation between the two
Оба текста описывают одну и ту же систему, но с разных позиций: первый пишет для читателей, которые уехали давно, второй — для тех, чьи дети учатся здесь и сейчас. Поэтому там, где первый объясняет, второй сравнивает. Чьи is the relative possessive. This sentence is what lifts the presentation above competent, and it takes twelve seconds.
Block five, 15 seconds — the personal response, then stop
Мне показалось важным, что ни один из авторов не пишет о российской школе как о чужой: оба всё время сравнивают её с немецкой, даже когда прямо об этом не говорят. Это и стало для меня главным наблюдением. Then stop speaking. Do not add a summary; you have used your two minutes and Part 2 begins immediately. Ending on a genuine observation invites the examiner's first question to be about something you have thought about.

Result: Структура на 140 секунд: 20 секунд — вопрос и названия двух источников; 45 секунд — первый источник по схеме из четырёх предложений (что это, главный тезис, два довода, оценка типа текста); 45 секунд — второй источник по той же схеме; 15 секунд — как два источника соотносятся друг с другом; 15 секунд — личный отклик одним наблюдением, и остановиться. Ни одного слова о находках: они относятся ко второй части задания.

Typical mistakes

Spending the two minutes on the research findings, which forfeits the AO2 grid and pre-empts Part 2.
Exceeding two minutes; the specification sets it as a maximum.
Writing the presentation out and delivering it from the page; a read presentation is audible and demonstrates nothing.
Summarising two sources without saying anything about their relation to each other.

Active revision

Запишите себя на диктофон и произнесите презентацию, засекая время. Цель — 140 секунд. Прослушайте запись и отметьте: сколько секунд ушло на рамку, сколько на каждый источник, сколько на отклик. Если на первый источник ушло вдвое больше, чем на второй, перестройте — спецификация требует не менее двух, и второй не может быть скороговоркой.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Exam technique: defending the project in Part 2#

AdvancedPearson Edexcel 9RU0 Paper 3 Task 2 Part 2 - discussion broadened to the research as a whole; AO4 12, AO3 12, AO1 6Pearson Edexcel 9RU0 Paper 3 - the teacher-examiner uses the key findings and list of sources on Form RP3 to formulate questions

Part 2 lasts eight or nine minutes and is worth thirty of Task 2's forty-two marks. The examiner builds their questions from your Form RP3 findings and source list, and is expected to elicit examples and information demonstrating your knowledge and understanding of the cultural and social context, and to get you analysing by developing and justifying arguments and forming conclusions. Two implications follow. Your findings should be written in a form that invites the questions you want. And you should expect analysis rather than reporting to be asked for — the question почему вы так думаете will arrive, and an answer that repeats the finding rather than justifying it forfeits the AO4 marks the question was offering.

Three kinds of question recur and each has a shape of answer. The factual question — что вы узнали о … — wants a concrete finding with its source: по данным второго источника, … , и это подтверждается тем, что … The analytical question — почему, на ваш взгляд, это так — wants a mechanism rather than a restatement: думаю, дело в том, что … , и это объясняет, почему … The evaluative question — а насколько надёжны ваши источники — wants an honest assessment: один источник — специализированный, второй рассчитан на широкую аудиторию, поэтому я больше опирался на первый там, где речь шла о цифрах. Practise all three shapes, because the third is the one candidates have never rehearsed.

Conceding the limits of your own research is a strength and not an admission, and it is worth saying deliberately at least once. Моё исследование опирается на два письменных источника, и оба относятся к одному городу, поэтому обобщать на всю страну я бы не стал. That sentence does three things at once: it shows you understand what evidence supports, it protects you from a question designed to test exactly that, and it demonstrates the evaluation the AO4 grid rewards. Candidates who defend every aspect of their project as though it were under attack score lower than those who say clearly what it does and does not show.

The interaction grid applies here as it does in Task 1, and Part 2 is in some ways easier ground for it, because you know the material better than the examiner does. Take the lead by offering a direction: если хотите, я могу подробнее рассказать о втором источнике — там позиция совсем другая. Elicit: а вам не кажется странным, что …? Check: я правильно понимаю, что вас интересует не сам факт, а то, как о нём пишут? And be ready for the question every candidate should have prepared and few have: а что бы вы исследовали дальше, если бы у вас было больше времени? An answer to that shows the project was a piece of thinking rather than a task completed.

Worked example

Answering the three hardest questions in Part 2

Your project is on how Russian-language publications in Germany write about Russian schools. The examiner asks three questions in succession: почему, по-вашему, они всё время сравнивают; насколько надёжны ваши источники; и что бы вы исследовали дальше. Answer each.

The analytical question — give a mechanism, not a restatement
Думаю, дело в читателе: эти издания пишут для людей, которые живут между двумя системами, и для них любая информация о российской школе автоматически становится сравнением, даже если автор его прямо не проводит. Дело в plus the prepositional names the cause. The answer explains rather than repeats, and it names the mechanism — the reader's position — rather than the phenomenon.
Extend it with one piece of evidence
Это видно по языку: в обоих текстах постоянно встречаются слова «здесь» и «там» без пояснений, потому что автор уверен, что читатель поймёт. Встречаться is a reflexive doing the work of an English passive. Noticing a linguistic feature of your sources is a particularly strong kind of evidence in a language examination, because it shows you read them in Russian rather than in translation.
The evaluative question — assess the kind of source honestly
Они разные по надёжности. Первый — газета с редакцией и датированными материалами, на неё можно ссылаться. Второй — сайт для родителей, где многое основано на личном опыте; там я брал не факты, а формулировки. Ссылаться на takes the accusative. Saying what you took from each source, rather than defending both equally, is the answer this question is looking for.
Concede the limit before you are asked to
И ещё одно ограничение: оба источника — берлинские, поэтому обобщать на всю русскоязычную прессу Германии я бы не стал. Обобщать на plus the accusative. Volunteering the limitation converts a potential weakness into evidence of judgement, and it usually ends that line of questioning on your own terms.
The forward-looking question — show the project was thinking
Если бы было больше времени, я бы посмотрел, как об этом же пишут русскоязычные издания в Израиле: там другая история эмиграции и, наверное, другое отношение к школе. Интересно было бы сравнить. А как вы думаете, ожидали бы вы там такой же тон? Если бы plus the past plus бы is the counterfactual. Ending on a question to the examiner earns the interaction mark and leaves the discussion open, which after eight minutes is exactly the right note.

Result: Ответы: на «почему» — механизм через положение читателя плюс языковое наблюдение из самих текстов; на «насколько надёжны» — разбор двух источников по типу с указанием, что именно взято из каждого, и добровольное признание ограничения (оба источника берлинские); на «что дальше» — конкретное продолжение с обоснованием и встречный вопрос экзаменатору.

Typical mistakes

Answering an analytical question by repeating the finding; почему asks for a mechanism.
Defending every aspect of the project as though under attack, instead of stating clearly what the evidence does and does not support.
Never asking the examiner anything in Part 2, which forfeits part of the six-mark interaction grid.
Writing vague findings on Form RP3 and then receiving vague questions built from them.

Active revision

Дайте партнёру свои шесть-десять находок и попросите задать по ним десять вопросов, из которых три должны начинаться с «почему», два — с «насколько надёжно» и один — «что бы вы исследовали дальше». Отвечайте по-русски без подготовки и запишите, на каком типе вопросов вы теряете беглость. Именно его и нужно отрабатывать.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for modern foreign languages (Department for Education)

References & sources

Sources

Pearson Edexcel

Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Russian (9RU0) specification

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for modern foreign languages

The independent research project: Task 2, Form RP3 and the defence

5 sections~34 min reading time4 competenciesLevel Standard 1 · Advanced 4

The independent research project: Task 2, Form RP3 and the defence

Key points

Checking three proposed projects against the rules

Key points

Narrowing one interest three times, in real time

Key points

Summarising and evaluating one written source in Russian

Key points

Scripting the two minutes, block by block

Key points

Answering the three hardest questions in Part 2

Sources

The independent research project: Task 2, Form RP3 and the defence

Key points

Checking three proposed projects against the rules

Key points

Narrowing one interest three times, in real time

Key points

Summarising and evaluating one written source in Russian

Key points

Scripting the two minutes, block by block

Key points

Answering the three hardest questions in Part 2

Sources