From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner Advice for Paper 1 (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 will be of interest to candidates preparing the A: Literature, Paper 1.

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared difficult for the candidate

The biggest difficulty that many candidates had was analysing the stylistic devices and linking them to overall effect. Many could identify these features but lost marks for simply not commenting on them sufficiently. For example, detailed analysis of imagery and its effect and linking it with overall meaning was often lacking. Structural features such as sentence length was often identified, but analysis often got lost in summaries of the general situation. Some candidates offered analysis of stylistic features without substantiating their comments with direct references.

Candidates appeared to find it difficult to integrate into the commentary responses to the guiding questions. Too many either structured their answer into a) and b) sections, some actually writing a) and b) in the margin. Others seemed to ignore the guiding questions completely. Many candidates' scripts lacked organisation. Essays had obviously not been planned sufficiently, introductions were lacking, there was no sense of a logical sequence of points. 

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates appeared well prepared

Candidates who had been taught the importance of planning were at an advantage. Good, clear introductions gave them a helpful lead into the commentary and many were able to establish a good understanding with insightful comments here. Indeed, the overall structure of the responses seemed better this year, with a competent use of paragraphs and linking devices, and clear conclusions. Some candidates had clearly been taught to read and annotate the text carefully, and these commentaries showed insight and a confidence in ranging over the text to gather references and ideas to support points.The better candidates linked stylistic features to effect and wrote fluent, cogent commentaries. Their responses suggest that they have been taught the value of a very careful reading of the text.

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual questions

PROSE

Weaknesses: There was a tendency to paraphrase/explain events rather than analyse/appreciate stylistic features. Often, focus on individual words and their effect was lacking. Although many picked up on the discomfort/ awkwardness at the beginning of the passage, many missed elements such as the "looking back in time" idea or the sense of foreboding in the repeated "regret what it started" idea. Relatively few picked up on the idea of time travel and, of those who did, few developed it. Candidates often failed to link the narrator's changing perception of his father directly to events, as specified in guiding question a). Some candidates seemed to be limited by the guiding questions, failing to go beyond them to investigate more subtle elements of the extract.

Strengths: Many candidates had a good grasp of the situation, the relationship between the father and the narrator and were able to identify the narrator's tone and analyse how it developed. Many candidates were able to explore the significance of the descriptive language in the first section.


POETRY

Weaknesses: Candidates tried to make ideas jigsaw together when the poem did not necessarily lend itself to such "linking". Many candidates failed to understand what the term "tone" meant. Some candidates had difficulty connecting "physical beauty" with the "beauty" in the second half of the text. A surprising number mistook Banff, Alberta for the writer's name.

Strengths: Many candidates saw the link between the two "beauties" and dealt with it very well. Generally, stronger candidates gave excellent interpretations which were fully supported by relevant references, convincingly linking stylistic effects with meaning.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

Candidates need to be taught how to plan – too many scripts had no plan whatsoever. They should be taught to allocate time to reading, annotating and planning before they start writing. The importance of a clear and focused introduction and a logical sequence of points supported by cohesive devices needs also to be emphasised.  

The idea of analysis of devices and how they are created to craft meaning needs to be reinforced; too many candidates just label features without analysing their effects or linking them to overall meaning.

They need to be warned not to narrate or simply explain what is happening in the text. Too many candidates tend to fall into a narrative overview of events.

The importance of directly referring to the text should be emphasised; some otherwise good analysis of stylistic features were spoilt by no substantiation with specific examples at all, while other weaker candidates simply did not make any direct references but gave vague generalisations.

Candidates need to be taught how to integrate quotes into the body of the commentary; many seemed to have no idea how to do this.

Candidates need to be taught how to manage their time more effectively. Some good scripts lost marks for not being complete or including a conclusion.

Teachers should make a point of advising candidates how to deal with the guiding questions, and how important it is to include focus on them in the commentary but not to structure it into two parts or include a) and b) in the margin.

More work should be done on the importance of punctuation for the cohesion and coherence of the commentary; the apostrophe for possession was frequently omitted.