From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner Advice for the IOC (English A: Literature).

Every year, the IBO releases examiner reports which offer valuable insights for each exam and assessment type. The reports typically offer recommendations to candidates and teachers on how to improve and what to avoid.  What follows is advice for candidates preparing for this oral exam.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A:

As in the past, candidates who demonstrated a genuine sense of engagement with the poem as a literary text performed very well. They explored the content and form of the piece, showing how the two contribute to its meaning (s). They avoided the temptation to see the poem a springboard to talk about matters of biographical, cultural or social context; and they avoided the temptation to lapse into paraphrase and description in place of analysis and interpretation. As one moderator reports, ‘candidates who gave a convincing overview of the poem from the outset and proceeded to elaborate on this overview, examining the text and subtext of the piece normally conveyed their knowledge and understanding more convincingly.’ However, many candidates continue to deliver pre-learned biographical introductions; these are always unhelpful. Moderators are also concerned that although ‘context’ is no longer discretely rewarded, teachers’ subsequent questions continue to focus on this aspect instead of the poem itself.


Criterion B:

Candidates who showed a clear awareness of the poet’s techniques and their effect in shaping and giving meaning to the poem or extract tended to do very well. Overall, however, this remains the most problematic criterion with moderators and teachers disagreeing sharply in their marking. Some candidates tended to see the demands of the criterion as best served through reference to as many literary features as possible. As one senior moderator put it, “Selecting the few that generate the most impact, or play the most significant role, and wrestling with them in some detail, is a key way in which the sense of independent critical response can be generated.” In addition, many moderators observed that too often candidates relied on paraphrase coupled with reader response, rather than a clear awareness of techniques and their effects. In some cases, the teacher’s subsequent questions failed to focus the candidate on missing details in the analysis. In other cases, some candidates damaged their cause by making judgments that were vague, unsupportable or speculative, as exemplified by statements like “this helps the reader to visualise the scene” and “the colour red is usually associated with passion.”

Criterion C

There was a wide range in the organizational quality of the commentary. Excellent analyses demonstrated careful arrangement of points or ideas, with candidates progressing through each point with carefully integrated textual evidence to support their interpretations. Such candidates had very effective introductions in which they announced the intended focus of the analysis and they brought the commentary to a meaningful end through a concluding statement, however brief. This independent control of material was further evidenced in the ‘body’ of the analysis in which candidates produced a deliberate and persuasive response to the poem. However, many commentaries tended to rely on the kind of linear approach that easily invited paraphrase and ‘explanation’ in place of analysis and interpretation. To paraphrase one senior moderator’s report, candidates who organized their ideas around 3-4 broad concepts and who stuck to them were the ones who typically scored higher marks in this criterion.


Criterion D

Most candidates demonstrated adequate knowledge of the work. They knew the plot and characters and discussed them at length; however, many did not explore the implications of the work. As a result, they lost marks for not showing enough ‘understanding’ of the text. Responses which showed a good understanding of the conventions of the work tended to do well. Still, very often, the quality of the candidate’s response very much depended on the kind of questions asked by the teacher. For example, candidates who were simply confined to ‘interviews’ about the work did not score high marks. Similarly, weak responses were elicited by vague and unhelpful questions like ‘What can you tell me about this work?’ or equally inappropriate questions, like ‘Who was your favorite character?’ or ‘Which character would you like to hang out (sic) with?’ or ‘How enthusiastic were you about the beginning of the play?’ and so on. In some cases, candidates merely reproduced taught material as prompted by questions like “In class we discussed the underlying reasons why Myrtle (in The Great Gatsby) feels compelled to buy a dog. What are those reasons?” Answers to such questions hardly showed the candidate’s insights into the work.

Criterion E

Once again, candidate performance in this criterion very much depended on the teacher’s questions. Candidates who were engaged in a dynamic and spontaneous discussion about the work as a literary artefact, with the teachers asking pertinent and probing questions performed very well. Their answers were often independent, thoughtful and lively. As one moderator observes, it was unfortunate that teachers’ questions often led candidates’ responses into “territory that is speculative (e.g. ‘What would have happened if Okonkwo had not accidentally killed his kinsman in Things Fall Apart?’), unhelpfully personal or subjective or irrelevant (e.g. ‘As a person of color, how do you respond to Othello’s tribulations in this play?’).” Even weaker responses were those that talked about the characters in the works as if they were real people.

Criterion F

Most of the performances ranged from adequate to excellent. The most successful were candidates who expressed themselves clearly, cogently and fluently. However, many candidates seemed unaware that they were sitting an examination, which by definition is a formal undertaking. Consequently, the quality of their expression was dampened by the ubiquitous use of ‘like’ and equivalent fillers, resulting in loss of points.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

As stressed in previous subject reports, teaching close analysis of short texts including poems throughout the diploma course has immense benefits for the student. Special emphasis needs to be placed on examining the different literary features of the text, how they collectively contribute to the meaning of the text and its effects on the reader. To quote one moderator, “Students should be encouraged to delve into elements of the poem that for them are the most significant , not to see them as a formulaic walk through a series of pre-determined check list of points – nor to think they have to cover everything.” Equally important is practising doing the oral commentary, with the teacher crafting suitable guiding questions for each text. In the latter case, one question should address the content of the text (e.g. theme) and the other some aspect of the language (e.g. a stylistic feature). For some teachers, it is also useful to remember that pre-set subsequent questions hardly ever help the candidate’s commentary. Please note that the Subject Guide requires the candidate to speak for 8 minutes, at which point the teacher should step in - even if the analysis is incomplete - and ask the subsequent questions. Moderators are instructed to take no account of any points made after the 10 minutes have elapsed, however strong.

It is important to distinguish between an interview and a discussion. Whereas it is acceptable to use some of the questions suggested in the subject guide and TSM, using them mechanically tends to limit the candidate’s ability to display their own insights into the work. Teachers who are always alert and interested in the response, asking pertinent follow-up questions, enable the candidate to reveal their strengths. To quote one moderator, “Understanding how to make the discussion work for the benefit of the student is particularly important. Questions should be appropriate, responses nurtured carefully and ideally developed, new topics brought up when a particular line of enquiry has been more or less exhausted.” Questions which focus on the ways in which people, events, settings and themes are presented in the work and which encourage students to make reference to the literary elements of the text help to produce quality responses. It is therefore important to avoid questions that invite speculation, generalization or simply memorized taught detail. Also, teachers are advised to refrain from asking whether a student was ‘satisfied’ with the ending of a work; instead, the teacher could ask about the extent to which things are resolved at the end so as to gauge the nature of the student’s understanding of the work. Further, it is never a good idea to lead students into discussion about politics or race relations. As one veteran moderator says,  ” Doing so removes focus from the text and encourages comments for which no marks can be awarded.”