From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner advice for Paper 2 (English A: Literature)

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

(Combined and adapted from the 2015-16 IB Subject Reports for SL/HL.)

General Comments

The study of a text is not the memorization of information (easily found on Wikipedia or in Sparknotes) about a text, not the isolated study of literary conventions, not the isolated study of particular contextual elements, nor the memorization of responses to possible questions, but consistent engagement of what and how a text means and how this might be significant. The best questions in paper 2 are authentic, interesting problems of literary study and the best responses in paper 2 seem to have a subtext that says, “what a surprising, interesting question that is even more interesting in relation to some of the particular complexities I have seen in the novels I have studied.” Examiners in this session remarked on a number of qualities in the responses of candidates. While there were many, and many types of, good responses, the best all shared qualities of being holistic, thorough responses attentive to the particulars of the question and the particulars of the works studied.

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

Overall, the candidates are well prepared for the expectations of the exam. The candidates have clearly studied the works and they understand the expectations of the paper in relation to the criteria. Candidates have clearly received direct instruction in organization, comparison, evaluation and approaches to generic conventions. 

But here is where the candidates run into difficulty. 

Candidates struggle at times to approach the question and the task in an authentic way. In other words, some candidates have "learned" the texts so well that they are not able to approach the question itself. They spend most of the time struggling to fit set ideas into a new question (the American Dream in A Streetcar Named Desire into "flight"). Learning a variety of interpretations of a work does not necessarily lead to the ability to produce interpretations in relation to a question.  This is a similar problem with evaluation-- good evaluation amounts to evaluative interpretation, to getting at why the question actually matters to the works and to literature, to understanding why the problem might shed insight into the works. Since candidates have learned they must evaluate, some are reduced to the notion of "author x does this better than author y." This arises again with comparison. Candidates throw in words like "similar" when there is only a faint similarity, or "on the other hand" when the subsequent idea does not seem to be another hand. The same might be said for generic conventions. Candidates who have memorized a few key generic conventions struggle to fit these into an authentic answer to a text. What results is some sort of tortuous thesis that says "Williams shows us the exciting force in "Death of a Salesman" through diction, imagery and interesting set design in order to show the false promise of the American Dream" instead of getting at the question at hand ("In Death of a Salesman the return of Biff sets into motion...that not only shows tension between the characters but indicates that family itself... "). In much the same vein, a strict structure of organization, while sometimes helpful to students as a scaffold while learning, may not always serve them well in an exam and may take the candidates away from the "content" (the question) at hand. Another issue in terms of meaning and effect is the tendency for students to talk about the "relatability" of characters. This is an issue with some examiners (and literary critics). While we won't argue the use of the word relatability one way or the other, suffice it to say that many candidates begin and end their discussion of the effect of a generic convention or the meaning of a text with the fact that it somehow "affects" the reader and makes them closer to the character or situation. An opening, for example, might draw us in. A character going through hardship is "relatable" and the audience sympathizes with her. While we may recognize and forgive this sentiment or notion, it can only be a starting point. If sympathy is created we must wonder why and to what ends.

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

In general, candidates are aware of the demands of the task and are well versed on their works, especially in relation to plot and character. Many candidates have an impressive array of textual detail at their disposal to use in response to the question. Once again, stronger responses use this detail in a flexible way in relation to the demands of the question while weaker responses tend to ineffectually force material—perhaps less well understood—to a question. The best responses have introductions that give evidence of significant thought in relation to question and a particular focus in relation to the texts themselves. These responses often read as if the candidate does not have nearly enough time to get at their thoughts on the complexities of the question or the nuances in comparison.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

• Students should practise handwriting so that their scripts are legible.

• Focus on the work at hand is the most important element in preparation for paper 2. Students should be responding frequently to interesting, ambiguous and difficult elements of a work as opposed to learning accepted readings of a text.

• While literary conventions need to be studied, they should be considered as part of a discussion of what a text means and how meaning is generated rather than as isolated elements with a narrow range of effects.

• Structure is important in an essay but a particular structure is not mandated and the best essays read as reasonable arguments that consider necessary detail rather than as narrow discussions that follow formula. Formulaic introductions, reduction to three key themes or elements, quick tags to the question and broad or grand conclusions often seem empty as compared to essays in which form simply follows a desire to communicate an idea through a beginning, a middle and an end.