From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner advice for IOC (Eng A: Language and Literature)

Every year, the IBO releases examiner reports which offer valuable insights for teachers and students for each assessment, providing detailed observations on student performance in each criterion. These can be turned into a useful guide what to do and NOT do on exams.

Comments by Criterion

Criterion A: 

• Candidates still fail sometimes to situate their extracts, or to indicate the significance of the extract to the work as a whole. This was particularly true for candidates with poems. Some candidates simply made comments that indicated that they expected the listener to know these points. Candidates need to be reminded that their commentaries are addressed to moderators as well as the teacher, and that the moderator has not been in the classroom

• The weakest candidates struggled to make sense of any part of their extract or fell to discussing the work in general and ignoring what was in front of them; the weaker candidates offered paraphrases or summaries of the extract.

• Adequate candidates showed satisfactory understanding of most of the extract and were able to see the significance of that extract in the larger work, e.g. that this scene is early in the work and the writer is just beginning to introduce the characters or to establish the setting, etc. and is able to discuss the lines of the extract in that light.

• The good candidates showed a clear understanding of almost the entire extract and were able to make comments based on a clear knowledge of the work.

• The excellent candidates were fully comfortable in their understanding of the extract and often brought more than one interpretation to bear, showing their understanding and appreciation for ambiguities or subtleties of the extract and for the extract in relation to the larger work.

Criterion B:

• As usual, moderators point to this criterion as the one least likely for the candidates to fulfill. A full array of responses occurred in this criterion, from no awareness of literary features at all, to incorrect spotting of devices or misinterpretation of them, to spotting of devices but failing to see their effects, to a full awareness of the presence of numerous authorial techniques and a discussion of their relevance in the shaping of meaning in the extract.

Criterion C:

• Some candidates were very clear in their introductions as to how they were going to approach the oral, offering three or four steps and then following that pattern.

• The choices as to what to cover and in what order varied in their effectiveness. Some decisions regarding topics led to the candidates failing to discuss several portions of the extract, thus impacting their knowledge and understanding mark. Some candidates clearly saw the key significance of the extract and developed their orals around ways in which this significance was borne out, offering a conclusion that effectively encapsulated the commentary.

• As always there were introductions that were much too long and offered too much information that was extraneous to the extract itself, such as irrelevant biographical or historical material.

• Fortunately, most candidates took this time to concisely situate the extract within the larger work, to establish why the extract was significant and to point out how they were going to address the extract. Conclusions, however, were more rare. Many candidates just stopped; and others offered a long repetition of what they had just said.

• In terms of the body of the response, many candidates simply chose to go through the extract line by line, which is acceptable and can even be effective, providing that the candidate ties the discussion to the significance of the extract and remains analytical. Unfortunately, too many candidates use this form of organization simply to paraphrase the extract.

• Almost all the moderators commented that careful signposting of topics or arguments during the body of the response was most helpful to the listener.

Criterion D

• Most moderators reported that the language was generally clear and the register appropriate.

• There was concern, however, that the language of literature has weakened. As this is a literary commentary, it is to be expected that the candidates have a vocabulary suited to the discussion of literature. A Shakespearian play should not be referred to as a novel, or stanzas as paragraphs. A firm understanding of terms such as irony, motif, symbol, image, metaphor, simile, theme, monologue, dialogue, soliloquy, rhyme, meter, etc. should be in place. Candidates might also be reminded that though their extract may be written in a casual register, their analysis of it should still be formal.

Recommendations for future candidates

• Many candidates seem to show the need for further practice in delivering a timed commentary.

• Teachers need to help candidates with the organization of their commentaries so that they know how to make effective choices that enable them to show a full understanding of the extract and its literary features.

• Candidates must discover the works for themselves, drawing their own insights and conclusions, and thus have "ownership" of the material that will give them confidence when discussing it.

Moderators also commented that a number of candidates failed to situate their extracts, or to indicate the significance of the extract to the work as a whole. This was particularly true for candidates with poems. Some candidates simply made comments that indicated that they expected the listener to know these points.